UKIP a party on the rise, why?
UKIP is a UK party who's policies include removing the UK from the EU, stopping immigration, cutting bureaucracy and spending more on the military and building prisons has received a huge boost in the local UK council elections, the first time a so called non mainstream party has done so well.
Why is it that a party that has Micky mouse
by the mainstream politicians had done so well? Are their policies so appealing to the electorate? Have the electorate had enough of the the mainstream party's policies which they perceive have been anti British?
The experts say that their vote share was made up of 50% from the Conservatives with the other 50% coming from Labour the LibDems and new voters.
Radical party? Or in tune with the people?The same thing happened and is happening all around the first world atm minor parties are doing well, look how well the lib dems did in the British elections not long ago, same happened with the Greens in Australia etc. that is a common occurrence during economic crisis and the recovery from them, people don't like any party so vote for third parties, it is also often something of a protest vote, it pretty much never lasts though once stability is resumed.
I think with UKIP its a little deeper than just the recession.
As the mainstream party's in the UK have promoted the ideals of the pseudo socialist dream of the European dictatorship the electorate has become more enlightened to the ridiculousness that is after all a faceless dictatorship who seek to control every aspect of an individuals life. They also realise that the economies of the individual nations are much the worse for their involvement in a economic zone that pursues a false economic model.
While the control of the European political elite continues to dominate the British electorates life and lifestyle parties like UKIP will continue to prosper.
At last a party to vote for with balls (or should that be "without (Ed._)balls? !!!)
an open door policy didn't work for the Airports in America -obvious after 9/11. So why hasn't Europe learned those lessons?
UKIP does appeal to the section of the population that feels resentment towards the swathes of immigrants that land on our shores, but also represent the only perceived alternative to the Old Firm of Labour and Conservative. As a libertarian I am turned on by anybody who wishes to scale back government bureaucracy, but if what you're saying is true and they are in favour of increasing military spending, I have to conclude that they do not represent a significant difference.
I guess the American equivalent would be the Tea Party: some good, some bad.
Personally, I voted for Murray Rothbard
I think the British people are fed up with the EU, unfettered immigration and migration, bureaucracy everywhere and the political elite continuously giving powers away to foreign politicians.
Political commentators think UKIP may make the huge jump to national politics in the 2015 general elections.
Remember, these were only local elections which often show minority parties in a good light. When it comes to national elections many voters will slip back into their old ways and vote as usual.
Considering they were only local elections its got the mainstream party's wondering.
UKIP may be the surprise and as more and more people realize that Labour or the Conservative are not listening that they may just be the party that represents the British people.
If, one day, Left vs. Right in Britain meant the Libertarian Party vs. UKIP, it would make me happy.
That would just be more of the same - the right against the extreme right.
Be honest, how many British people would vote for the Libertarians given their policies?
Most people in Britain (IMO) vote on a "what's in it for me?" basis. The trouble with the Libertarians is that they don't work like that: their platform is "we believe it's every man (or woman) for themselves, as long as you don't harm anyone else". And there is no gun lobby in Britain (the libertarians' natural franchise).
That said, from a personal perspective I can completely understand why so many people in Britain are voting for UKIP - many British people are fed up with the fact that Britain is such a magnet for immigration and many people (myself included) are fed up with the EU and its bureaucratic nonsense.I do agree. There is an intellectual precedent for Libertarianism in the US where there isn't in the UK. No gun lobby, as you say, and no 'Constitutional Movement' or anything like that.
I can't think of anything more "what's in it for me" than voting for lower taxes.
Yes, but libertarianism goes further than lower taxes. Libertarians want to dismantle the welfare state (not just trim it down, *dismantle* it).
And isn't that the ultimate "what's in it for me"?
I suppose it is - for those who believe they're never going to need any form of welfare.
I think very few of us go through life expecting to need any form of welfare.
State pension? Treatment on the NHS? Tax credits? Child benefit? Paid maternity/paternity leave?
All of us in Britain (apart from the very wealthy) certainly expect to need/want the first two at some point in our lives, if not the rest.Sorry, I was focused on welfare being unemployment benefit and sickness.
I wouldn't call the NHS welfare.That's what we pay our taxes for. They are an insurance against when an if we need those things. The problem comes when millions who haven't paid a penny towards the safety net expect to use it all their lives for free.
There are 6 million people on benefits in the UK, different sources have given different figures but the TPA calculated approx a million people who have never worked recieve benefits.
Even without working it is near impossible not to pay taxes in the UK, remember VAT.
Paying tax out of taxpayers money is not really paying tax is it?
If i give you £3 and you give me £1 back i am short £2.
Basic economics really.However if you give me three pounds and I give you back three pounds you've lost nothing have you?
Basic economics really.
The government gives welfare recipients an amount of money from the tax pot, i doubt very much that the said above return all of it to the tax pot,
so it becomes a negative take from the tax pot.
The more money given to welfare recipients the more the taxpayer has to contribute.Not really that's why governments are in the business of increasing taxation and dreaming up weird and wonder-less new taxes.
Still doesn't allow even serial tax avoiders to avoid tax completely.
The government has to think up new ideas for raising taxes because they have fixed t for fewer and fewer people to be able to pay them.
BTW the splendid UKIP, if given control would have to raise taxes even higher to pay for their mad cap schemes.
(See how I brought the thread back on to topic there?)
I personally don't think the taxes would rise under UKIP, if they are true to their word (and i must admit all political parties tell porkies) the UK would go through a difficult time but would come through it stronger in the long run.
Most of their ideas are less madcap than Labours or the Conservatives.
(nice turn around to back on topic there John Holden)I don't know, they talk about pulling us out of the EU but never tell us where we would then trade, or even how.
The local UKIP bloke makes it clear that they would stop prisoners "perks" without seeming to realise that the "perks" are there for the benefit of the staff. Without those "perks" they would need a massive increase in prison staff and how would that be funded but out of taxes?
They talk about ending immigration but immigrants are a net benefit to the country. How would they replace the benefits accrued?
It seems they have a lot of populist, but ill thought out, policies.Not to mention that reducing prisoner perks increases crime.
Hence the massive increase in staff, oh, and the longer sentences.
Another UKIP rep was suggesting today that we should make our prison system more like the American one! A fine idea, trade something that doesn't work perfectly for something that doesn't work at all!
I think you have fallen into the old EU retoric trap of the UK couldn't survive with the EU.
Would the EU really stop trading with the UK though? The countries within the EU have just as much to lose if they stop trading with us and they all trade outside of the EU anyway.
I have still seen no real figures to back up the claim that immigration is a net benefit to the UK, people keep getting mixed up with the figures for migration from the EU with those of ROW immigration. Even Mr Milliband had to appologize for the failings of Labours mass immigration debarcle.
The EU countries employ 407,000 UK residents and the UK employes 1,400,000 EU migrants.
As many other party's are talking about the soft option prison stays and perks already then UKIP's policy is no different than any other party exept the Liberals who think prisons should be like holiday camps.
The facts prison reformers seem to overlook when spouting their liberal rubbish is reoffending rates have risen in the last 30yrs so maybe their reforms are not working so well.Nope the fact the idiotic parties like UKIP fail to mention is the only countries that have successfully decreased their recidivism rates and crime rates have embraced reformative jailing (what you would ignorantly label holiday camps) ie. Norway which lo and behold has the most liberalized prison system in the world and the lowest recidivism rate in the world, what a coincidence.
OH and as for those "terrible" immigrants, they reduce crime in the areas they move to and are less than half as likely to be on unemployment benefits.
The vast majority of the platform of UKIP is just an appeal from obvious ignorance on the basis of being provably and factually wrong to appeal to voters who are too cowardly to show their true colors and vote for the BNP.But more importantly, what evidence do you have that member countries would not stop trading with the UK?
As for net benefit of immigration see-
http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/br … gration-uk
And how exactly was mass immigration the labour parties debacle? Don't you remember Mr Powell, the Windrush and the masses brought into the country to run our transport and health systems? Or doesn't that count because Powell was a right winger?
Again, most prisoners "perks" are not for the benefit of the prisoners but a way of keeping control with the minimum of staff? Even American prisons offer "perks", as some of us seem to idolise the US prison system is it not a case of if it's good enough for them . . .
Ignorantly? I didn't start calling them that until the criminals started to call them that themselves.
Compare the stats and you can see your comparison really doesn't match up.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Nor … gdom/CrimeOH and if some prisoners call them that obviously you should and it's not ignorant
None of the statistics mentioned there are relevant at all, it does not cover crime rate's per capita or most importantly recidivism rates and those are the only relevant ones, why does it not cover them? Because Norway destroys them in both particularly the most important one because it's prisons operate better.
Trust me you don't want to go the way the US has we went tough on crime and criminals and we have the biggest prison population in the world, the highest recidivism rates in the first world and abhorrent crime statistics.
Just does not work and the data makes that abundantly clear.
Norway's recidivism rate is about 20% the UK's is about 60% and the US's is even worse than that.
It really can't be any more obvious.
OH almost forgot, you were wrong before, crime statistics in the UK continue to fall, it's at it's lowest rate for thirty years.It would make life a lot easier if you were to actually quote the post you were replying to rather than randomly quoting! For instance, your first sentence makes absolutely no sense.
I suspect you are viewing threads in threaded order, look at the top right and you will see two buttons, one saying "threaded" the other "chronological" click the second.
Your link seems to support Josaks suggestion that all things considered Norway has less of a problem with crime than the UK.
Well its obvious that Norway is a different beast all together and the fact that there are no punishments for crimes means the victims are the ones who loose out.
Liberals will always state the rights of the criminals and never talk about the victims, the idea that there should be no punishment for crimes committed is nothing more than the failings of a few impacting on the lives of the law abiding.
One of the major factors is population Norway has no overcrowding either in its country or jails.
I noticed that recidivism rates are only calculated over 2 yrs.
I also don't like the thought that someone who kills children could be released from prison after 21 years no matter whether they are rehabilitated or not.
Prisons should be a place where criminals serve a period of incarceration for the crimes they commit, rehabilitation should start after the terms have been served.
Nothing Norway has done has impressed me enough to believe criminals should have an easy time after murdering someone. I doubt if i would feel safe if the person who murdered my nephew was released early because someone believed him to be a reformed character.Nope the people who lose out are a the victims created by the dumb systems used in countries that do not follow liberalized prison systems, prison terms are a different issue but if punishing people means creating more crime and more victims then it is outright stupid.
Very few people are in prison for murder, the vast majority are in there for drug related crime, not paying for their TV license, driving offences, theft and other nuisance crimes.
I don't doubt the six million, but where is the data suggesting that they have never worked?
Well there's all those children in receipt of child benefits
The liberal thinkers love to quote the Sweden experiment as the model for prison reform whilst showing it against countries like the UK and US its funny how they never mention Saudi Arabia their stats are better than both but their system of justice is much more harsh.
Saudi Arabia has almost twice the murder rate of Norway. Not to mention Saudi Arabia is not a first world nation and does not use the same methods of justice or record and their statistics are not independently collected by the OECD. Criminologists suggest however that Saudi Arabia actually has a very normal crime rate but that many crimes are dealt with outside of the law, families in Saudi Arabia for example usually do not report rapes to the police but instead kill the rapist. It makes it a useless comparison point altogether.
Any comparison is useless anyway because it doesn't take into account history or economic factors.
The fact that some believe criminals shouldn't be punished for their crimes is rediculiousness in the extreme.Who are these people that believe criminals should not be punished for their crimes?
I rather think that claim is ridiculous.NO one believes that, one system reduces crime and re offense and the other does not.
It's obvious that Sweden doesn't believe in punishment it just tries to rehabilitate.
No it isn't obvious, provide examples. Rehabilitation is paramount if you want to save money (you were the one to mention history and economics) Punishment alone is futile, look to the UK's criminal justice system for the examples. Our prisons are filled with prolific, yet petty offenders. The press have consistently scare mongered about dangerous offenders; rapists, murderers and child molesters. They exist, of course, but they are not the individuals who populate our prisons. Our prisons are filled with shoplifters, car thieves, drug addicts and alcoholics, they serve a few weeks punishment and then they're kicked out, only to return a couple of weeks later.
And anyway, looking to Sweden for the answers is so yesterday, even though they have achieved a greater balance when it comes to rehabilitation/punishment than we have. Look to Norway- many respected social scientists do.
Precisely, as in what in it for me, me being anyone who is not on some form of welfare or can afford to pay for their or their child's medical care.
It's easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost.
But I think Libertarianism is very compassionate. Any movement that seeks to end destructive wars, and promote freedom of speech, privacy and property for everybody has to be considered compassionate.IF we are going to cherry pick the parts of an ideology that sound rosy there is not a single one on earth that is not compassionate.
ie.
Communism seeks to provide equality, fair labor, dignity and basic necessities for all, it is thus compassionate.
As for other people's money well in most nations leftists are wealthier (because of the massive education gap) so really it is mainly their money.But wait a minute . . . I thought in capitalist economies, the richest people are the greedy capitalists, not the compassionate leftists.
Nope, leftists are more educated so in first world nations they are almost always wealthier. 7% wealthier in the US for example.
I accept the stats. My point is to highlight the gap between what the left's vision of who argues for lower taxes is, which is usually the rich, and reality.
Who, exactly, are you footing the costs for Innersmiff?
The state and the states' special interests.
Wrong way around, the special interest groups use the state for their own ends. The state is merely the puppet of the special interest groups.
Without the state, how would the special interests go about committing aggression? Only through the pretence of a monopoly of force to solve all of our problems can they get away with murdering, spying on and stealing from law abiding citizens.
Without the vote (without a state where would we note our preferences?) the populace would be denied any opportunity to make decisions on their own behalf. . We have little control as it is, how would we exercise our rights and preferences without a ballot sheet?
The market is a much better indicator of our preferences. The state does not enhance our decision making abilities but inhibits them.
Instead of the corporations' wishes being enforced through the state, they should have to respond to the market. Being presented two or three essentially indistinguishable parties as "choice" is a farce.You are very trusting and, personally, I feel that I'm the best person to indicate my preferences, the market has absolutely no business making decisions on my behalf. . I should have the right to decide on which piece of paper, and where, my cross is marked.
So you want to replace one dictator (the state) with another (the market) and also want to them to decide what is right for me, without my input. Good luck with that one!Yes, you are the best person to indicate your preferences. You indicate them through the decisions you make and the other individuals you interact with. This is called: the market. Only the individual has the right over themselves and their property.
Statism is saying: I do not know how best to indicate my preferences, so I will simply let someone else decide for me, and for everyone else.Nope statism is a recognition of the fact that many of these preferences cannot possibly be enacted by the individual. As in a the origins of statism, a secure border, it requires a level of organization largely impossible without a state to be effective on a large scale.
Tell me how that contradicts: "I do not know how best to indicate my preferences, so I will simply let someone else decide for me, and for everyone else."
...I am completely annoyed now. This is a placeholder to remind me to post on this when the UKIP's website starts working again...
All I'm going to say for now is that I really, really don't like this crowd. They give me very bad vibes. Homophobia is part of the issue, but everything else I want to highlight...is on their dead website. Sigh. Later.Personally, I think that all the hoo haa about UKIP on the rise is hilarious. Cameron could not secure a workable majority in 2010, why? Because in this country we have a collective consciousness(those who are old enough) and he was still associated with the nasty party. He had to lie pre-election, as the main parties do, to secure a tiny majority. Now, after this huge UKIP surge (not, and not forgetting that many of Farrage's voters would not vote for him in a general election) he is moving towards the "It's all the fault of immigrants and Europe" codswallop. He will lose many of the middle of the road types!Remeber those, they once voted for Blair?
This will split the Tory vote even further, and reaffirm the doubts of all those who thought that the nasty party had changed. And even if, even if, Farrage is able to muster more votes in 2015, this will not equate to seats- our voting system is too antiquated.
I believe that it was 1989, where the Greens secured 15% of the vote ( before the last byelection the Farrage types were celebrating such a percentage) Yet, it was 2010 before they gained a seat in parliament!
Also quite hilarious is those who are voting for UKIP because they are sick and tired of immigrants, strangely, many them appear to originate from white, middle class suburbia. Not multi ethnic/cultural cities. Oh how the mask slips. Reading the Daily Mail will surely dumb you down.And the Torygraph outlines this perfectly, which is why I rarely slag them off:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james … l-to-arms/
@Josak, John, *precisely* Can't help it, Tory and uber rights make me really giggle. SINKING. SHIP.RATS.LEAVING.
Okay. It's finally up, if laggy.
So, here are my problems with the UKIP:
1. They want to withdraw from the European Commission on Refugees. Combined with their immigration policy, it's clear they would really rather not allow refugees. Given my great grandparents were refugees who went to England, I'm wary.
2. They want to increase Britain's nuclear arsenal. Come on, people. It's the 21st century.
3. They have an incoherent policy on same sex marriage that is, admittedly, based on a real concern, but is still a mess.
4. I'd talk about their tax policy. If I understood what they were blathering on about. Well, except that they seem to think they can fund the NHS without NI... Oh, and you can both cut taxes and improve services. Would be nice.
5. They consider all renewable energy to be a scam. They don't believe in global warming. Whether you do or not, they don't care about pollution.
6. "Require all visitors to exhibit adequate health insurance at port of entry" Way to kill tourism, guys.
7. Young Independence, for some reason, gives me the creeps. Probably because their website sucks and provides no information.I take your a Labour voter then?
It would be nice to see some of Labours policies but of vcourse they will wait until just before the election before they spout their lies wont they.
Europe is a mess, immigration is a mess, the economy is a mess and all the systems and controls put in place by Labour and the ConDems are a mess yet non of them have any ideas on how to get us out of it.
And you think UKIP are idiots.........Immigrants and refugees are not one and the same.
Agreed
But mixed up liberal humanitarians cant tell the difference between refugees and refugees.And that means what, exactly? Refugees are refugees and immigrants are immigrants.
The UK is an island, the only way for a refugee to come here is by air or through other safe countries, therefor this suggests that the UK should have no refugees by their very definition.
The same with asylum seekers, unless they arrive by air they can not really claim asylum.A refugee can claim the status of a refugee, or do you believe that they are all "smuggled" here? Ever heard of the Vietnamese Boat People, white Rhodesians, Poles or Hungarians? What about Lord Carrington, ever heard of him? In other words, and in certain situations, countries including the UK agree to accept refugees before they have even entered the country. It's been going on for years you know.
The fact that we are an Island does not mean that we should not have refugees. Surprise, surprise- many of them enter the country legally.That's why there are 159000 current claims for asylum status.
A refugee must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, they can not wonder from country to country until they see one that they like.They must claim asylum yes, but not necessarily to stay in the first safe country they reach. When human beings are escaping persecution en masse, it quite usual for other countries to agree to take x amount of refugees, or otherwise. But the fact still remains, immigrants and refugees are not one and the same.
As i said i agree that immigrants and refugees are not the same.
Actually, I haven't voted in a UK election for years - I live in the US and hold US citizenship. And if I did, I'm not sure who I'd vote for at this point. I'm a little out of touch.
And no.
I don't think the UKIP are idiots. I think they're dangerous and part of a dangerous trend.The trend is alittle to the right because of the mess the left made of it in just 13yrs.
But the last time the left were in government in this country was 1979!
Isn't there a cut off point?Even New Labour were pseudo socialists left of centre.
They were Thatcherite's almost to a man. Don't you remember Tory Blur removing all hints of socialism from the Labour party constitution?
They were led and ruled by the left wing unions that funded them.
The Labour party relies on funding from the unions currentlu standing at about 90%.
The party is left of centre.
The Labour party is a full member of the the party of European socialists.
It also holds observer statue in the socialist international.
The Labour Party is a membership organisation consisting of Constituency Labour Parties, affiliated trade unions, socialist societies and the Co-operative Party,Would love to see the data, from a reliable source, for the 90% funding. I can find figures banding around between 36 and 72%, but none are reliable or particularly accurate.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 … e-support/
data released by the Electoral Commission?That's interesting, the chart also establishes that funding from the trade unions has also decreased from 2007. So, it isn't that the unions have increased funding since Miliband became leader (the reverse appears to be true) rather, the Labour Party have lost funding from other sources. Those figures, I believe, are from 2010. Would be interesting to see how things stand now. There are no links to the study from that page, sites really annoy me when they don't qualify their conclusions.
Take a look at the electoral commission site then Hollie T if you are really interested.
The unions see the Labour party as their party and campaign for their members to vote for the Labour party.Does the Electoral Commission site include links to the study? The Labour Party was established by the unions so of course they will feel an infinity with it. Maybe things have changed somewhat, but when I worked in a closed shop in the early eighties we were asked each year if we wanted our contributions to be given to the party, we had the option to say yes or know.
As the daughter of a trade unionist, and having attended many many meetings over the years, I can honestly say that I can't once remember being coerced into voting for the Labour Party.The conclusion is that John was wrong and the party is a socialist left leaning party.
You have the right to choose who you vote for, your upbringing will define who you are and what you believe. I was born into a Labour voting household, i was amember of a union for 20 yrs, i became a shopsteward and represented workers on a works council.
I have now decided to change my views about the union and i am no longer a union member or a labour voter. I believe evrything they stood for has been lost in their own wellbeing and self promotion.Your conclusion may be that I am wrong, it is not a conclusion I share with you. There is far too much evidence around to even consider the Labour party to be even mildly socialist any more.
As for left leaning, they are further to the right than the Conservatives were pre 1979.
"Trade union funding now accounts for 91.3% of cash and non-cash donations to the party’s central office, up from 59.9% last year, data released by the Electoral Commission shows."
Dated 2011.
And what has happened to individual donations?
BTW, the Unions represent the people, who do the millionaire donors to the conservative party represent?The recession has happened John didn't you notice it.
I am not mocking you John i was just trying to give my reasons why i think the Labour party is the Labour party is the Labour party no matter what they are called the bulk of their donations always come from the unions who have some influence over party policies and politics.What has the recession got to do with anything?
Why do you conclude that all trade unions are socialist? I've belonged to right wing unions in my time.Private individuals are lesslikely to donate in a recession.
You are right, so i will say all unions who contribute to Labour party funds are socialist.
Although saying that some of their leaders are capitalists.Yes, less private individuals donating would make union donations a higher, not lower, percentage of donations.
You do realise of course that there is nothing socialist about trade unions?
Many of their members are right wing and would run a mile from any sight of socialism.
In a true socialist state trade unions would be absolutely redundant.
Though socialists are generally left wing, not all those on the left are socialists.
And yet Thatchers proud boast was that her greatest achievement was Tony Blair and New Labour!
Not bad for a woman who hated socialism and socialists - or do you think she was a liar and a hypocrite?BTW, that's the Labour party you talk of, not New Labour.
Labour party or new Labour both funded mainly by the unions.
One and the same just a different slant at a different time in their history.
Is that why union membership continued to decline under Bliar and why more an more trade unionists left the labour Party and became members of other parties? And if the left wing unions were leading and ruling New Labour, why weren't the powers previously held by the Trade Unions restored?
Blair moved the party further to the centre that's all. Now Milliband is moving back to the left.
It seems to me that anything that is not full out socialism is considered "right-wing" to John, i.e. anyone who disagrees with him.
I'm pretty much done with 'left' and 'right' as indicators of significant ideological difference. It's statism versus liberty now.No, but there is a distinct difference between left wing and socialism.
How do you equate true socialism with statism and not liberty?Socialism requires seizure of property, and that can only be done through statism. But if you're one of these voluntary socialists, then we should have no issues with each other.
"Socialism requires seizure of property,"
Does it heck! What have you been reading?Blame Josak, he put that vernacular in my head last time we were discussing this.
Socialism requires centrally controlled distribution of resources. Unless you expect everyone in the country/world to voluntarily give up all their property, this is going to require a government.I remember, you literally said "seizure of property". And it has to be considered seizure, because governments are defined by their aggression against property, and have to steal in order to 'buy' it in the first place.
The only way it could be considered voluntary is if it were a a private group that decided to buy property and run it communally.If I said seizure of property it was on a different issue.
But yes if you want to call taxes property seizure then all systems except pure anarchism rely on property seizure but that is just facetious.But what of the conservative government who seized property off the people and then sold it back to some of them?
"Seizure of property" is not a phrase I have ever used even politically.
Nationalisation is property seizure. If you have no choice on whether you sell your business or shares in that business then it must be considered seizure.
As when the railways were nationalised in the UK, the railway companies were almost begging the government to take them over.
But socialism does not all ways equal nationalisation.
If we look at the public utilities in the UK, they were started by the municipal authorities and paid for with the rate payers money, no property was seized, unlike when they were denationalised and public assets were seized for private gain.
Could be but i doubt it would be.
I wouldn't let my shares go voluntary as they are part of my pension plan and i doubt the government would look after me in the same way.That's because in the past the goverenment nationalised when companies were in trouble.
That's not necessarily true, Innersmiff. People on the left are consistently told that Blair was/is a socialist, therefore, left wing ideology is responsible for Iraq, debt and every other evil. That's like saying that all right leaning individuals are responsible for the holocaust, or that all libertarians are gun wielding, war mongering nut jobs.
We have to separate the megalomaniac party leaders from the voters who have a different vision of the same ideologies.I'm not arguing against making distinctions between political parties and actual ideologies, I'm only arguing for distinctions that are actually so. 'Left' and 'Right' are not significantly different ideologies, so arguing about whether Labour is 'left' or 'right' or not is a pointless exercise.
Agreed, so perhaps you can explain why so many right leaning thinkers feel the need to rant about "socialism" when in reality the only ones who benefit from this so called socialism are crony capitalists?
Look up, the socialists occupy the square mile!To anybody serious criticising the left, it's nothing to do with 'who benefits' but what it actually does: both socialism and crony capitalism are aggressions against liberty and property. At the end of the day, I couldn't care less what you call it.
Left and right is not a big distinction to you, all around the world tens of millions have died fighting for one or the other because they thought you were wrong. The vast vast majority of the word does (and growing). So obviously you are wrong, ideological differences can only be measured in how people react to them because that is exactly what they are designed to do, produce a reaction.
People can be hypnotised into producing a reaction about anything, even if it's irrational.
This is another ad-populum thing that you can't seem to escape from.Ad-populum fallacies only apply if the issue is not specifically aimed at producing a popular response, that is what all ideologies aim to do and by their respective stances are defined by their followers so all that ideologies are is centered around a popular response so really it's not an applicable use.
Also please people are not hypnotized into anything, these ideologies spring up because they appeal to people and they believe in them strongly just as you believe in yours, no hypnosis required.
Let me give you an example:
Let's say slavery was still largely accepted, and the main ideological paradigm was: whether the slaves should be put to agricultural work, or to factory work. Supporters of both ideologies might be vast in number, and support them passionately, but it doesn't change the fact that both of them carry the same essential assumption: that it is OK to enslave people. Is, then, the anti-slavery campaigner 'wrong' to say that the ideological 'differences' aren't significant differences at all?
I would not be alive with my current combination of genes if the UK had not given asylum to my ancestors.
Of course, that was quite a while ago and there are more "safe" countries now, but a civilized country does not turn away those who would die or be imprisoned if they were to return home.I agree with what you say but should countries take refugees from safe countries? So people who have escaped from a country where they are persecuted to France should then be allowed to claim asylum in the UK?
Also there must be a limit to how many asylum seekers a country can take so taking refugees from other safe countries can and will affect the population of that country.
I am glad your ancestors found asylum in a safe country but there must be a limit or their offspring will suffer in the future.
@Innersmiff, spoken like a true Libertarian, I'll give you that. You want your property and person protected, but how will you pay for this- you don't like taxes either? Do you want me to pay for your protection?
I know you don't care what we call it, yet you are the one who talks about "all out socialism" and in the same breath, talks about people being hypnotised to produce a reaction. I'll count backwards from 10, disagreement about policy does not equate to "all out socialism" that's an irrational thought.It will be a cooperation between myself and private defence firms that protect my person and property. If they don't do what I like, I withdraw my funds. With the state, I have no choice but to accept it.
HAHAHA oh my obviously never dealt with or served with "private security firms "
Not to mention many people can't afford any such service meaning that crimes can simply be committed against them with impunity meaning they will never be able to acquire enough wealth to afford it and will be perpetually poor.
This hilariously bad idea was actually tried (Like most anarchist and libertarian ideals) in many places in the early 19th and late 18th century, in England for example the most trusted company that provided a police service was eventually found to have been committing most of the crime and chasing itself the leader of it was executed, amazingly it worked so badly that people decided they needed a public system (as with most anarchist and libertarian ideas).The demand for cheap security is already taken up by the state police force (that bastion of transparency and justice
) so private security firms take up the higher market. The absence of a state police force will free up that demand and prices will fall.
This amazingly good idea was tried in the early days of the United States in the form of militias. And remember, these were the days when American armies didn't go gallivanting around the world destroying everything in its wake - I wonder why that was?Military and police force are different things entirely, not to mention that militias were armed, clothed etc. with tax payer money, and that they were not very good (being untrained compared to professional soldiers).
Edit: forgot to say, you will never ever be able to make it cheap enough so that everyone can afford it, and people completely unprotected will never be able to change their station.
I don't think you would be able to drop the real cost at all anyway, first off because many cops I know take the pretty meager pay and benefits for ideological reasons because they are working to protect everyone, that will go out the window when it's simply a business dedicated to helping some people and #2 the inefficiency.
Let's say that every street need a cop car patrolling it (for the sake of simplicity) currently that means we pay for one cop car, if there are four companies competing in that area which each have some clients on every street and still need a car on every street that is four cars patrolling now at presumably four times the cost. I think those factors will easily overcome the lowered cost of competition and still without providing anything to a whole lot of people who need protection most.
Excellent system.In a free market they will serve the same basic function. The modern military is not principally concerned with protection but structured to facilitate interventionism abroad.
Remember that, before the government stepped in and ruined it, fraternal societies acted as a safety net for the very poorest and most unfortunate, and it is conceivable that protective services for these could be paid for in this way too. (Interestingly, the welfare reforms in Britain were originally meant to be non-state solutions, in the form of expanding fraternities, i.e. a mass voluntary welfare system. Even the leftists of yesteryear realised that the state was rubbish at it.)
Your scenarios are economically flawed. Firstly, cops' wages will be subject to supply and demand like everything else. As they are completely necessary, prices will need to be low anyway. Not to mention, time and resources won't be being spent persecuting voluntary association such as drug abuse and prostitution.
Your second scenario is baffling. What is more likely is that street owners will hire the security services, and will specify in the contract how much protection they need, e.g. whether they need one or two cop cars patrolling the street. The contract signed in order to buy a house on the street would most likely include security as part of the community fee, which happens all the time now anyway. If there is no street owner, the home owners will most likely come together and pool funds for a security force, or simply create one out of their own numbers. You act is if people just lose their brains as soon as the government stops deciding things for them.Er, you must live in a different Britain to me!
The welfare reforms came about in Britain precisely because non-state solutions did not work. Remember Dickens comments about the deserving and the undeserving poor?
Where is your evidence that "even the leftists of yesteryear realised that the state was rubbish at it"?Back in the days before the fire brigade was nationalised, private fire fighters would sit and watch properties burn down because the property was not insured with the watching company.
Do you think private police forces would act any differently?
Could you honestly afford G4S? And even if you could, would you honestly want to employ security firms that have their hand in the oppression of the Palestinians?
And are you suggesting that only "well off" property owners should have access to protection? Should protection only be afforded to the comfortable/wealthy? What about people who don't own property, like so many women, should they be denied protection?I addressed the price point in my reply to Josak.
I have the choice whether or not I want to interact with G4S. I don't have the choice but to interact with the government, a government that facilitates the oppression of Palestine and numerous other nations.
The reason why people vote for UKIP is simple, none of the above, the citizens of the UK are fed up with the way the establishment runs things, all main three parties have MP's that come out of the same mould. UKIP is not part of the ruling elite. The three main parties run a closed shop policy, if you didn't go to the right university you won't get selected to be an MP.
I think people are just fed up with the liberalisation of the UK. mostly forced upon us by the faceless bureaucrats of the big EU gravy train.
In 1965, the playwright Joe Orton wrote: ‘We live in a country which would give the power of arrest to the traffic lights if three women magistrates and a Liberal MP would only suggest it.’ And nothing much has changed since.Wow! Nearly 30 years before the EU was founded!
And at a time when the political climate in the UK was entirely different to today.
Absolutely John, its much worse now.
With all the liberalisation and so call political correctness we seem to come to the point where not only would the traffic lights have the power of arrest the parking machine has the power to judge you guilty.
A point where an illegal immigrant who commits a crime cant be deported because he as a cat and a murder can claim financial recompense because he had to wait to for trial while the victims family gets nothing for losing their loved one.
A point where politicians can steal money from the public but then give it back and get away with it.
A point where political leaders can start wars on falsehoods and suffer no punishment when found to be lying. In fact they are lauded by their equals.
The system may have been set up for the protection of all but it has become the refuge of the murderer the scoundrel, the fraudster and the politician.
Related Discussions
- 42
Why do they want to kick out the British PM
by chigoiyke 13 years ago
....soonest it will be; why did they kick out the British PM - what's his name again? Gordon Brown. I have been following the British election with some amount of attention but I still don't get why a serving PM is about get kicked out through the votes (atleast with all indices, polls and...
- 41
Its all happening over here (Europe).
by karl 9 years ago
It seems the rise of the political right in the European elections has started the lefty leaners to question their ability to continue to fool most of the people most of the time.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27593556What Milliband and his crew don't seem to understand is that the shortages...
- 78
GOP Nightmare
by Kathleen Cochran 8 months ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … op-doomed/Opinion A Republican nightmare seems about to become realBy Jennifer RubinColumnist|FollowJuly 24, 2023 at 8:48 a.m. EDTSupporters of then-President Donald Trump take over balconies and inauguration scaffolding on Jan. 6, 2021, at the...
- 28
can i have my party back now?
by Stclairjack 11 years ago
ok,.... i'll chime in,..... i am NOT disgusted with the people of this country,.... i am NOT angry that the democrats won,...... i AM TERIBLY ANGRY that the republicans knowingly willingly LOST,........ good grief this was an election that any ANY good candidate could have won,...... but the RICH...
- 34
Hillary is too old
by Writer Fox 9 years ago
Hillary Clinton is too old to be president of the U.S.Hillary would be 69 years old if she assumes office in 2017, which would tie her with Ronald Reagan for being the oldest US president ever elected. (You remember, Reagan, don't you? The president who developed Alzheimer's disease...
- 871
Racism, Institutional or Otherwise, in America
by Scott Belford 9 hours ago
Three white men were recently convicted of chasing down and murdering a black man who had the audacity to appear in their neighborhood. A year ago or more they might have gotten away with it.Today there is a report of another white father and son team shooting at a black FedEx driver at least...