Not building houses also redistributes money...

From those that do not have it to those that do.

This is fundamentally a supply side problem. Too many people, not enough houses. I understand the issue is somewhat more complicated than "oh more money will solve it", but it is a SERIOUS issue and not something that can be ignored.

You say it would depress the market. You mean reduce the cost of housing? Yes please.

No, and I'm sick of hearing the stupid argument that they make a profit. Still having a monarchy in the 21st century is hilarious. This is supposed to be a modern first world country.

Well it's a key issue for some, not for others. UKIP do have education policies I'm sure but their rhetoric and focus is centred on populist issues rather than those which appeal to what most would describe as the average voter-jobs, education, economy, healthcare.

We both know that they didn't intend to silence Farage and we both know that you are trying to bring down the independence movement by implying that they are.

May have misused the term 'free market' there, but I can't think of another way to say it. What would you call a market with no regulation whatsoever? Remember that I am only talking about the extreme here.

And I suppose 'no regulation' is better for the extreme.

That's no reason to stop reading though. You were nearly finished.

Perhaps it is better to merely refer to this as extreme capitalist?

haha, reading this thread shows some amusing characters.. and also some rather ignorant ones. I'm not going to get involved as it usually ends up get personal, HOWEVER, i will point out that some people are mixing up the EU with the eurozone and each of their very different effects. e.g. cyprus is primarily in trouble due to eurozone, not EU (mainly).

I'm prepared to say you will be proved wrong.

The spin levels are going through the roof. I guess reporting the next few sentences of his speech where he explains that immigration was encouraged in areas where the UK had skills shortages it could not fill locally would be a bit too much like balanced, honest journalism.

Take a look back through this thread. You'll find numerous example s of contradiction by the SNP of it's own policy.

I have another theory to add. English legislation is far more leniant on landlords than on the continent.

So you are saying it is out money making other countries richer? Why would we do something so stupid? Let's keep the money for ourselves and stay on top. The whole point of money isn't for luxuries and comfort but for your position in the social hierarchy.

The thing is that many people do think it's broke :l

But then think about it, Scotland is 99% labour, Lib dem and SNP, all are left wing parties. However they are being ruled by a right wing conservative government which hardly any of them voted for. You can see how this is hard to swallow for the majority of the Scottish public, being ruled by a party that you have never voted for.

Well because political opinion is so polarised between the seperate nations.


Scotland is generally in favor of left wing socialist governments.

Whilst England is generally in favor of more right wing capitalistic governments.

With Scotland being the smaller nation, they get outvoted every time in the British parliamentary elections and regardless of something like 98% of Scottish seats going to left wing parties, there is a right wing party governing them.

Oh, I can quite believe you do disagree and will continue to do so as long as you can continue to conjure possible but nevertheless ridiculously implausible alternative scenarios in your head.

Anything to avoid admitting that the socialists allowed about a third of all disability claimants to claim fraudulently.

Sure, people stop claiming for a variety of reasons. Some may get better, some may get sicker, some will even have died over that time, due to their condition. This will naturally affect the claimant numbers over time. But this is an ongoing process. Why did such numbers not come off disability before? Why did it take a letter from the DWP to 'cure' them? Surely there have been no magical cures or phenomenal recent advances in medical technology recently? We would have heard about them.

Are you an idiot? In a white-majority country 84.......

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
..
.
.
.
84

primary schools have NO white pupils...

That's like going to Nigeria and finding 84 primary schools with no black children?!

I quite agree. Calling the EU an "EUSSR" betrays horrendous ignorance and lack of historical sense or sensitivity. I find this term enormously insulting to everyone who actually lived under or in terror of that regime.

The EU should be criticised for what it is, not what it is imagined to be.

Diane abbot, mannerisms are snooty and patronizing, rolling eyeballs to the back of head.

I am Dutch but I do listen a lot to the BBC. I heard something about stricter immigration laws for the UK. I believe they were also applying to people like me, from Europe.

How do you guys feel about that?

P.s. I'm not really involved in UK Politics so please if I am wrong about this topic, please do tell and ignore this post :3

You have used smear tactics and Nazi allusions against those who don't agree with you - do you remember? #11, #33 and #79.

I think a particularly illustrative one was post #79 - "So what went wrong the last time we allowed the "adults" to experiment with eugenics?" If that isn't alluding to comparisons to the Nazis, I don't know what is.

I don't really buy the "huge" levels of UKIP support, which is no doubt a key part of why this is being announced. I honestly think most of it would fade at an actual election. Simply put the EU and immigration are not things people vote for in elections, yes they care about them but every time the Tories have run an election campaign mostly based on immigration they lose, why would UKIP be any different? If the Tories start moving right to flank UKIP they will lose the next election.

It would appear that it's not just the UK that is unhappy with Europe. It's a general trend with only 45% of Europeans supporting the idea. and only the German population supporting it. Then again, Germany seems to be the biggest benefactor of this EU project.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-899588.html

Take a man who goes to university and gets a degree. He then struggles to enter the job market and early on fails to earn more than people who dropped out of school at 16. Many people agree that this is unfair, as the graduate's hard work is not rewarded.

In a similar situation, a man goes off to study politics or economics. After studying, he finds that despite his hard work he has no more say than anyone else about how to run things, and thus he is unrewarded for his hard work.

In the case of the EU referendum, people want democracy in which the uneducated have as much say as the educated (both for and against the eu, not saying that all against the eu are uneducated), but by the capitalist logic that hard work should be rewarded, this is a bad thing? Any counterarguments?

Polling indicates that most people are against it. We were offered a referendum in the 1970's about joining the European Economic Community. A free trade block. Nobody was told that the EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ferendum,_1975

There are now concerns that this trading block is trying to turn Europe into the United States of Europe.


I'll let somebody else do the pro's and cons.

But for me, the cons are.

Lack of control over our own laws/Borders/Future.
Cultural differences that cannot be ignored. (Language, religion, Politics etc)

True treason does have, for some unknown reason, a certain flash to it. Which is surprising.

I know an absurb sentence when I see one.

'out of touch'- you disagree with him. I happen to agree with his stance on the EU, thus he is 'in touch'. You see you can't generalise how you feel about the EU with the rest of the UK, polls suggest its fairly evenly split, maybe even higher in the 'stay in' camp.

Bear in mind this is the Politics board.... post it in 'Chat' and I'm sure you'll get very different results :D

Even if you do want to move, it's not always possible because some countries have capital controls.

No. It's just plain unrepresentative.

I think you're overstating your approval of the system just because you have an issue with direct democracy.

See how your accusation can work both ways?

You are just as biased as everybody else - at least with PR everybody's biases are given equal weight.

It may pass, but who cares it doesn't mean a damn.

It's a draft...barely a breeze, for a referendum far in the future.

It is easy to say that with hindsight. It is not clearly highlighted in the documents provided nor on NatWest's website. I am sure that thousands of students must make the same mistake every year.

It is a very easy mistake to make. One day you will probably make a similar mistake. Perhaps you will slightly misjudge the amount in your account, or your employer will pay you late, or one of your bills is unexpectedly large, or you get distracted from financial matters for a few days due to a family bereavement....

Your grasp on current terrorist politics is loose. hamas and hezbollah (iran backed ) are sworn enemies and are in fact in conflict in syria. Syrias sunni rebels have been firing rockets into hezbollah controlled lebonan throughout the confilct

Yes, it does. I don't see an immediately apparent explanation.

You see, I called you up on your figures because all too often in debates like these I see dodgy figures plucked out of a hat which are a misrepresentation of the tax system as it currently operates. Sometimes, this is just down to (wilful, in some cases, like this one) ignorance. Sometimes, it is a deliberate attempt to make the tax system appear more burdensome to high earners than it actually is. Either way, I like to make sure that people like you get their facts straight so you guys can argue on the basis of what the tax system actually is, rather than some distortion of it.

There's a big difference between 18% and 36%, and an even bigger difference between 41% and 61%. It's not like we're niggling over a few percentage points here and there.


Yeah, grow up.

I am appalled that the debate is on the EU when most polls show that it is not the number one priority, the economy is. In the words of Bill Clinton 'its the economy stupid'

The Tories have pushed the self-destruct button when it comes to Europe due to the history of in-fighting.

Since when do I care about people caring about my posts and reality is they can't DENY it because it is the TRUTH. Jesus!

I can't find anything about it on the website.

400,000 vacancies, supposedly

2.5 million unemployed


you do the maths!

Try this one: The EU is phenomenally undemocratic.

At the EU elections, we vote to install members of a parliament which can't propose legislation. The sole function of the only directly elected body in the EU is to block changes it disagrees with. What this effectively means is that if the people change their minds and think a certain power shouldn't be given to the EU, their representatives are powerless to return it to the member states. The EU commission would have to propose the return of these powers, which it does not do, meaning that the system essentially only allows for the flow of powers away from member states (and by extension away from democratically chosen representatives of its citizens) towards the EU, regardless of the wishes of the people.

I disagree with many of her policies, but Tony Blair, to me, is the ****ing antichrist.

I'm not telling you to vote for anyone, just pointing out that leaving the EU is something that OP's suggestion would probably make more likely, so mentioning it in an argument against the OP seems a bit redundant.

I plan on voting tactically. I agree with UKIP's immigration policy but if I don't vote Tory then my worst nightmare may come true with the return of Labour *shudders*.

There's always Plan B - become energy poor.

If conventional energy is doomed for the reasons for suggest, and I'm quite prepared to concede that your evaluation contains an element of truth, then we'll have to take it on the chin and accept the good times are over. Wind farms are no replacement for North Sea oil reserves and as such offer nothing but a cruel (and expensive) form of hope. Are we that weak that we need to delude ourselves with promises of a renewables-led future to soften the blow? I think we both know that wind, wave and solar don't have the capacity to feed an energy hungry 1st world nation so if hydrocarbons become inaccessible then the game is up. We'd be better off sitting around twiddling our thumbs than throwing more time, effort and money at another bloody offshore windfarm. They're a waste of space, albeit a soothing one.

How am I supposed to prove something that isn't really happening?
It's like asking someone to disprove the existence of the yeti. It's not up to sceptics to prove the yeti doesn't exist, it's up to believers to provide hard evidence that supports their claims.
You need to convince me that warming is real, it's a problem it's here to stay and that subsidised windfarms are the solution. I'll be honest, it's a tough remit. Good luck!

I apologise for bumping the thread, but I was taken aback by this comment. It's one thing to disagree with UKIP's policies, but it is quite another one to compare the party to the Nazi Party.
Please spend a few minutes reading UKIP's manifesto and actually understand their policies.

NHS 'owned' services are badly dysfunctional thanks to the untouchables in management, 13 years of Blair and Brown ...

they do not do what they say on the tin and are killing patients and wrecking the lives of front line staff due to the **** management and lack of back-up for frontline staff



the corporate culture of the nHS management is rotten to the core - everything is focused around pleasing the political commissars and their pointless targets - targets which anyone with any understanding of service improvement would reject as they are not relevant to the service instead just a way of providing 'bread and circuses' to the client state bred by Brown and Blair




and where is the suggestion that this will happen rather than as seen as in many high performing systems welsewhere in Europe where providers areowned by anyone but the funder

you also forget that GP practices, Dentists and community pharmacies have all ways been 'Private' as have NHS general optical services



and no one has suggested any of this for the UK or the NHS ?

free at the point of use is perfectly compatible with providers being privately owned
as GPs have proved since 1948

The idea that it is inevitable that smaller countries willalways be gobbled up by larger empires until there is world government is also strange. World history shows that the balance between empires and States goes in cycles. Empires grow, become unwieldy and collapse. It seems obvious to me that if the UK were governed from Brussels there would be problems with the empathy of those in Brussels with the problems of those in London. The Scots complain that the English dont understand them so it is unlikely that Brussels will understand the British. The reason Empires collapse is that government must satisfy the requirements of localities and the world is too diverse for a single government to satisfy everywhere.

I'm not personally fond of the left v. right distinctions anymore, I think it's better to consider policies or ideas on a case-by-case basis (which seems like you would too).

I've always been a fiscal conservative and economic liberal and I still am, but I don't like social conservatism at all now. I've definitely got more "libertarian" in the last year. I just hate the idea of big government altogether.

Ha you have a bearded child.

I'm glad I don't have an ill-informed closed minded mother like you I have to say. I wasn't born in the Thatcher years but you just have to look around you to see the lasting damage has done to this country. Or, do some reading and become informed, I read around the subject from both sides of the argument and don't dismiss well researched opinions offhand based on the amount of facial hair someone possesses.

It was the Russians and the USA, I don't think Russia took aid from the US. We only nearly failed because we had more fronts than Russia and the USA combined, fighting in Europe, in the Pacific and in Africa all by ourselves, whereas the US could concentrate all it's force on the Pacific and join in with us in Europe with us and other allies.

I feel this is something important that often gets forgotten because I don't feel it represents us during the war accurately.

It would help stop misspending and make benefits even more unattractive

But would have unintended consequences and could lead to people going into debt to get stuff as well as a black market for food stamps

In terms of the Euro election:

British National Party - Want to withdraw from EU. Whatever you write about them someone will disagree, but I think of them as leftwing economic policy, so nationalizations etc. Pretty authoritarian and often held up as being the racist party.

Conservative - Pro-EU, but less so than Lib/Lab. Traditionally right wing party but now more middle ground.

Green - I actually don't much about them but thought i should mention them, i guess they have an environmentalist agenda.

Labour - Pro EU, want further intergration and union. Perhaps moving from middle ground to a more left wing party.

Lib Dem - Very pro EU.

NO2EU - Left wing version of UKIP, pro workers rights.

UKIP - want withdrawl from the EU. Right wing libertarian party. Want low taxs.


OK that is a very brief summary of how I understand it. I have tried not to be biased.

But then how would London be able to bolster it's foreign dominance over natives if we had appropriate border controls?

So, on Question Time, someone in the audience claimed that there had been 90,000 rapes in the UK and only 900 convictions. Jerry Hayes then said (something to the effect): "Well, clearly there weren't 90,000 rapes then, were there?", to which the audience member was aghast. Later, David Davis said that rape has a 'low conviction rate'.

My question is: how can there be a low conviction rate? Aren't conviction rates always 100%?

Corruption in France? there is very little corruption in France, at least in comparison to Italy and Spain where corruption is part of the daily routine. Politicians in France do something about corruption, in-fact if you read the news Hollande is coming down hard on those that evade tax especially within the government. While I will admit that under Sarkozy many got payments for doing X, that is just called lobbying and I am fine with it.

Sarkozy 2017

Because by and large I (presume I) am a generally nice guy, Nationlist tendencies don't instantly equate to mindless racism and a violent attitude.

Oh sorry, I meant traditionally those were the people who were most likely to vote conservative or labour. It's a fair point that it has been changing.

Well I see your avatar is a picture of Gramsci. Would you agree that the Soviet Union is an accurate example of socialism in practice, or would you dispute that claim based on arguments from earlier theorists?

A religion may reflect the beliefs of its followers but it also shapes them. Christianity was historically pacifist until it obtained political power, but Islam was always a vehicle of the politically powerful. It stands to reason that Islam then would originate with justifications for expansionary violence - and that these would shape its later adherents.

Our armed forces matters regarding NATO and EU which is what I am trying to make and you support it

I have been compared to Margaret Beckett and now Ken Clarke (the only Tory I like). I take it is a compliment, I am a screaming Lib Dem though

Boris is hardly right wing, bar his hatred for the EU he supports lots of immigration and gay marriage.

They're all pretty incompetent - for various different reasons - but Miliband's the worst of the bunch.

If they were in business, running a company, for example, they'd all be out of their jobs within a matter of months.

It's been a while since you posted and nobody's replied yet...maybe you should check out MarkedbyTeachers.com, TSR's sister site. It has the largest library of essays in the UK with over 173,000+ coursework, essays, homeworks etc.. all written by GCSE, A Level, University and IB students across all topics.

Handpicked examples show formative feedback comments from some brilliant teachers. Plus, reviews from A* students and hints, tips & common mistakes from their teacher team. You get access either by publishing some of your own work, or paying £4.99 for a month's access. Both ways give you unlimited access to all of the essays.

All their documents are submitted to Turnitin anti-plagiarism software, so it can't be misused, and the site's used by hundreds of thousands of UK teachers and students.

What's more, you can take a look around the site and preview the work, read reviews and teacher summaries AND view the hints and tips absolutely free. Click here to find out more...

What high inflation? It's only marginally higher than normal levels.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/26...flation-in-uk/

Many high profile politicians are saying that UKIP are just a protest vote, people voting for them just to prove a point.
However, Teresa May has said that in the general election, it will be a vote between two parties - conservative and labor.
So, my question is, will UKIP stand a chance of getting any seats in 2015, if they are indeed, just a "protest" vote?

The point was, just because we could theoretically add millions more to our country, doesn't mean we should.

Essentially, there are 650 seats in the House of Commons and in order to form a working Government then you need to win at least 326 at a General Election. As no party reached that number, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats entered into a Coalition giving them a majority in the Commons and thus a secure Governmental mandate.

You can lead a Government without a Commons majority (last time this happened was in 1996 when the Conservatives under Major lost their majority in the months before the election) but it leaves your Government especially vulnerable and prevents you from fully implementing your manifesto pledges. Canada though had a minority government between 2006 and 2011, but we're generally more skeptical of that outcome.

Of course they have ceremonies in the house of god.. not the same god but their own god.. they still have to sign into a legal partnership.. so do Christians... The whole church thing is a celebration in front of god.. and god made Adam and Eve.. not Adam and Steve.. the whole point is equal rights works both ways or it isn't equal, the church have held marriages and funerals in the house of GOD for 1000s of years.. and people want to discard that because they are attracted to animals of the same sex? or because they want to use wacky left wing EURO legislation to get one back on people that dont think being Gay is right... i sense if GOD didn't like red t-shirts the Gay community would have a very red wardrobe.. i smell a chip on their shoulder.. striving for equality is impossible.. look at nature.. every community of Animals has outcast.. leaders.. workers.. runts.. and confused ones that hump the leg off anything.. the world only works because it has order.. and all this kind of stuff does is takes the rights from one and gives it to another.. pointless.

is that a real party broadcast? i can't tell

I think you're right. The very fact we have devolution is a sign that the British State doesn't work and eventually the different countries will depart.

If things stand as it is- I believe the Yes vote will be defeated in Scotland. But as the debates heat up, UKIP on the rise and the UK economy continues to worsen - who knows what will happen!

I respect your opinion. But was there any need for name calling? Unfortunately, this immature approach to writing takes away from your point.

And we could also say goodbye to independent candidates, local interest parties, and the local, personal element to politics.

You sound like a real uptight twit. Perhaps you should apply for a job at the health and safety executive. I'd imagine you'd fit in well

Labour will never be tough on immigration, why would they, they want as many immigrants as possible. All labour care about is staying in power and immigration on the scale we've been seeing, labour is setting itself up for the long term.
As for the conservatives, I have no idea why they wouldn't be strict on immigration - I think they're just stupid.

This has been happening on TSR for years and years.

Illegal ? What are they going to do ?

Why is an Irishman the leader of the English defence league?

Just interested in this, you know Tommy Robinson, aka Stephen Lennon, a son of Irish catholic immigrants?

Because lets be honest, the definition of English to the far right is exclusively white anglo saxon protestant, which this guy is not. If anything this guy is a fenian/taig, at least in their terms.

And if the EDL is supposedly welcoming of people of all different backgrounds why did he feel the need to change his name for?

Is this more hypocrisy from the far right?

Little question, if the whole world was one ethnicity, what argument would you use against those whom dislike mass immigration?

I think you've read my comment wrong. I said, women can work twice as hard as a man. You may have two candidates at 25 right. You might think, oh no I best not recruit that female because she'll have kids. But the woman might work twice as hard as that male recruit in the medium to long term. She might win you good contract and thus bring in big profits. She might be a better leader than the guy. This is my point. You're generalising a candidate only because of her sexual organs and instead of judging the individual. You're treating them with a general brush. This is a poor way to pick the best person, especially if you're thinking long term business.

Just because men don't go on as maternity leave as much and as long as women. Doesn't mean they will overall, be better for your business. It's not a reliable factor. So many other factors come into play.

No doubt. Stalin stole from the kulaks, and the Soviet system was brutal and vioent.

But this is not the same as ongoing exploitation as you see in Bangladesh. I'm not saying it's better (though clearly for the Soviet working class, they are overall better off than the Bangladeshi working class).

It's a question of nomenclature. But when you drill down to the point, (Whether a country can industrialise without cheap labour), I am saying that the Soviet Union did just that.

Why? Surely it means they resign?

http://www.thecommentator.com/articl...edia_briefings

This follows recent negative press (none of which actually discuss UKIP policy) in the sun, telegraph and daily mail only days before the local elections.

Yes, the debt is just two years worth deficits added together so in this example after 2 years you have a debt of £20 before you come up with a plan to halve the deficit in year 3 and then pay the remainder in year 4 so your debt rises to £25 in year 3 (just as it has risen in RL) but then stays the same in year 4 because you now have no deficit.

Of course the big problem is we never stay in surplus long enough to have a serious crack at the debt.

He has to be PM

On QT he was even better because on immigration and the ECHR issue all the other agreed and said the same old rhetoric

It's called the Good Friday Agreement.


The IRA had estimated active membership of 1,000 or so. To support that you need 10,000s of close sympathisers who don't want to take personal risks, and 100,000s or 1,000,000s or vaguely supportive bystanders. The people who actually take action are always only a small tip of the people disposed to support such action.

Well firstly we don't have pure capitalism obviously. Also our economy is not a failure we enjoy extremely high standards of living compared to the rest of the world. Its understandable that you may think the economy is a failure when you look at the poorest in society, however the poorest in society are incredibley well off relative to the rest of the world.

We don't have a voice in europe..and if so please tell me what our voice is because my view is that everything they say or want to implement we have to refuse because it's not in our interest, it will economically damage our businesses! Furthermore not having the euro is making us less and less significant within, if we joined the euro maybe so but we're not going to so why not have a referendum? I welcome one is been long due after all

it's not really pro-choice then is it?

You've jumped on the deluded fool bandwagon.

Mandatory abortions? Beginning to sound a bit like the euthanasia projects of the disabled from Nazi Germany if you ask me....

I think it's absolutely pathetic comparing UKIP to Nazis. I personally think this is just another cheap shot at UKIP to suggest their right winged ideologies are 'bad'.

Yes and that's a serious threat in 2015 however when people see they have no seats and so its a wasted vote in addition to a better economy, they will go back to the big 3 in 2020.

In the long term enabling Ukip is very bad for the Tories.

Completely agree they should make some of these benefit scroungers fly around the world and be entertained by foreign dignitaries, see how they like it.

You are a lunatic. Prison reformers were the original meddling left in the Victorian era, now we have a government stuffed full of them, and social order is in a dire state.
The whole point of "boredom" in prison is that you can reflect on your crimes against a society which accepted you, and resolve yourself to a better life on the outside when your liberty is restored.
If you can't do that, why should you be rehabilitated? Why should society accept you back? There is an implicit social contract here.

I suppose you think committing crime is perfectly reasonable if the government doesn't give you endless money for food and housing too. No, if you can't help yourself, you are a charity case and nothing more.

Why do you always assume that people should hold no personal responsibility whatsoever? Nannying do-gooding berk.

So Dianne Abbot and George Galloway are left wingers who haven't been seriously offensive/racist?

Are they reasons not to vote Labour or Respect?

no offense but thats a load of crap mate. Are you seriously suggesting that leaving a political union would stop trade with Europe? no it would not,mercedes benz would keep selling cars here and trade would go and and we could make our own trade deals with the rest of the world.

Is anyone in this country standing up for Socialism? Seems to me it is either Communism or Capitalism. Will the nightmares ever end?!

What about people that complain about people complaining about people who complain about people complaining on the internet. Like yourself?

Nothing wrong with a good moan, its the British way, whatever happened to our national pride?

Whats really annoying are people that complain about things on the internet they partake in themselves.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2247318

oh okay :$ well i'd say no, politicians would rather keep hold of key supporters as opposed to do what they truly believe in, especially the tories whose supporters would be wealthy pensioners, who would oppose having their state pensions taken from them.

Unfortunately i think he handled this badly and the fact that polling barely recovered backs this up in my opinion. Cameron in Eastleigh made a fatal mistake in putting a Ukip candidate against Ukip, this type of thinking which was behind the referendum proposal simply vindicates Ukip so Farage can say "look at us, we've made the mainstream parties listen, give us the credit". What Cameron needs to do is create a vision for a Conservative Britain, not a Ukip Britain and he has failed to do that.

In my opinion the Conservative Party has lost ambition this parliament (or perhaps they never got it back) because they need to be the party that governs for the whole of Britain, we have cities like Manchester, Leeds and Edinburgh which did extremely well before the financial crisis but saw little movement towards the Tories, these are cities full of the aspirational working classes which should be the Conservative strongholds but instead we have a party which is increasingly inward looking at appealing to the Tory shires in panic against Ukip. The sad fact is for the party that the type of ultra-Conservative message that goes down well in rural Oxfordshire does not go down well in suburban Manchester.

The party may well have the right message for business but it is the masses who work hard and aspire that can ultimately give a party the huge majorities that people want and these people i believe want a bit of immigration rhetoric (though many are immigrants themselves) but probably don't give a crap whether the EU is regulating fruit size or imposing cultural marxism. I believe that what these people want to hear is a loosely center-right, liberal message whereby they have low taxes, good public services (schools, hospitals ect..) and have the belief that they can succeed. What i don't think they want is a government which bangs on and on about Europe or goes all nutty and wants to bring us out of the ECHR.

Of course i could be wrong but time will tell. My conclusion essentially is that the party that put that pro business, pro-aspiration, liberal message across is the one who gets a stonking majority for 10 years.

..........

Note that i view the coalition and wider Tory party as distinct here. The coalition i believe does want to govern for the people and i have now enormous respect for the Lib Dems who i always viewed as wet and spineless until coalition. The wider party however is frankly killing any chance of a 100+ Tory majority within the next decade, they are increasingly nutty and pandering to the likes of Ukip (i'm pretty sure there's an MP who wants capital punishment as well) and socially at least are holding the party back. Given that we need to capture the apathetic 25-35 working classes from the cities i mentioned we need to be socially in tune and move with the times because they grey, shires are not where we need to be fighting.

..

Rant over.

I'm pretty right wing but I do believe everyone in the UK should be given the best opportunity in life possible. Increases competition just decreases opportunities.

The government are all for it as immigration gives cheaper labour to big business and organisations like the NHS. A spin of 'being anti immigration is racist' have been put on the situation to try and stop people complaining.

I do understand it. I didn't see the point in mentioning it in great detail. I understand politics and economics. I watch the news and my mum is a county and district councillor.

I didn't say they'd be able to. But they've been in power a few years now, if what they're doing works we would be in a better place than we were when they started.

Which one?

Mr. Looney Tunes. I have not called upon anyone to support my points, I am quite capable of supporting my own points. Mr. Tunes where have I said I want camps for ethnic minorities?

Mr. Tunes I still don't know who "this guy" is but after reading that thing you posted and hearing you I'm starting to sympathise with him.

Crickey is are you for real or is this the new technique for wearing people down?

Oh and I came in here from one of those links "BNP members please join TSR"

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t210349/

I was thinking about how we could create a fairer society.

For example is it fair that the CEO of a coal mining or oil company is a rich oligarch? And that the Royal family and wealthy landlords own so much land? Is it fair that Prince William is so rich just from an accident of birth?



So this is my proposal. Maybe you can help me iron out the details:

Say there are a million people living in the UK. At birth you are given a millionth share of every piece of land in the UK and also an actual physical plot of land for your house. Everyone living in the UK has to pay you rent. It also means that coal mines have to share their wealth with you because you own a percentage of the coal mines and also the oil mines. In this way the wealth of the natural resources gets distributed throughout the population.

You can make agreements to acquire other people's land which means you'll pay more "rent" (or tax really) to the population at large and they will pay less. (In practical terms this amounts to a land ownership tax and a natural resources tax but this way the tax is precisely calculated.)

At death your land gets redistributed to the population at large. (Not physically just in terms of accounting). Or other people can make agreements to acquire this land.

I haven't really got the details down. But basically it is a system that makes sure that everyone in the population benefits from the natural resources of the country while still keeping capitalism. And prevents people from owning diamond mines which actually belong to the UK as a whole.

It is beyond disgusting. I'd love to get into the civil service but they only offer internships to ethnic minorities/disabled people, everyone else just has to do really well at uni and hope/have a contact

UKIP arn't very libertarian, and have many authoritarian policies. I'd find it silly to compare them to the Tea Party, which is much more libertarian than they are.

Plus, the Tea Party doesn't consist of the most reasonable bunch, so the comparison could give UKIP bad publicity.