General Chat

Agree with OFITG having watched the results and reactions throughout the night. It was a wake up call and woe betide any party that doesn't heed the message delivered by UKIP.

Sue

I said that the Nazi (National Socialist) party could arguably be said to be left wing and that Hitler, although he was responsible for a great deal of evil, actually also did some good.

ah right, well yes I can see that was a bit controversial, but not incorrect per se.

Exactly, Sirius, and well documented.

I am somewhat reminded of the scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian where the chap is stoned for saying Jehoveh.

It is historically documented that Hitler, despite being an evil person, did a lot of good for Germany in the 30s.

It's unfortunate that someone keeps reporting ErrolSheep's comment. It is not unrelated that many people saw Hitler's policies as good for Germany when he started out, that is a documented historical fact.

pmsl Errol, the stoning scene is my all time favorite, laughing just thinking of it :-D


Jehovah! Jehovah! :-D :-D :-D

Nazi Germany | History.co.uk
www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-ww2/nazi-germany
At the beginning of the 1930s, Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party exploited widespread and deep-seated discontent in Germany to attract popular and political support.

Here's a quote for you

"[XXXXX 's policies] were half-baked, racist clap-trap... but among the jumble of hysterical ideas XXXXXX showed a sure sense of how to appeal to the lowest instincts of frightened masses."

So who is the quote refering to? ;-)

Are you insinuating that Farage is to be compared to Hitler?

Not "insinuating" that. But the method as described in the quote is not dis-similar? Play on the fear, offer the 'answer' , get into power. Then leave the electorate wondering what the hell they have got themselves into?

The aim of the European Market was to integrate Europe and prevent further war. The aim of the Far Right is to divide the Working Classes.

Nobody has answered InspectorGreenPen's post, I would like to ask the same question.

No party or politician is going to make everything 'OK' for everybody. Some complain that leaders and parties now are wishy-washy and sway with every breeze that blows. Well, we had 'strong' governments and leaders in recent history (anyone remember Mrs T?) and many didn't like that either. Old die-hard toryism and labour both became unelectable so we have what we have now! And as for accusations of pandering to media, and knee-jerk politics, what about the outcry there always seems to be when something 'awful' happens and the government (whoever it is) is pressured into reacting?

Perhaps the swing to UKIP is a warning, I would agree that the EU needs reform, but are they going to be effective at this, as they just want out of it?

What I consider "ordinary" hard working people to be are those people who are on low wages, who don't squander their hard earned wages,

Many pf these people, through no fault of their own struggle to make their wages stretch from one pay day to the next, just to keep a roof over their head, feed & clothe their family, and pay their energy bills, a fish supper once a month would be a luxury for them, they earn just a few pounds above the threshold that would entitle them to some help from the state. There are thousands in that predicament - at least in the world I live in there are.

I agree that government, no matter what their political persuasion, can only spend or re-distribute what it takes in taxes or raises from borrowing, having said that, the wealth this country generates favours the few not the many, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, as one of the richest counties in the world and as a so called civilised democracy, that can neither be fair or right, it makes a mockery of the well worn phrase "we are all in this together" unless you interpret that as "some of us are in clover and the rest of you are in the mire" ;-)

Perhaps somebody should have a word in (Call Me Dave,s)Ear and tell him that Charity begins at home not in some Despots Bank account while our own people are relying on Food Banks Etc because of Polititians Misguided ideas.

Well, doing a bit of trawling, I found the following, and was rather shocked::

2011/2012,£42 billion corporation tax was unpaid. £11billion of that by foreign firms such as, Google, Starbucks, Amazon etc.

2012/2013, £98 million was spent on MP's expenses. (edited thanks to Sheila)

2011/2012, £35 billion tax (as in earnings) was unpaid due to fraud or error and off shore accounts

Last year the UK paid £14.7 billion into the EU. We appear to get back under half of what we pay in.

2011/2012, £159 billion spent on benefits, of which, £74.22 was pensions (to my mind pensions shouldn't be part of 'benefits')
Housing benefit £16.94billion,
Disability living allowance £12.57billion
Jobseekers' allowance benefits - £4.91billion
The rest was spent on Tax credits (as wages are so low), child benefit (given to everyone - even those who don't need it ) and various other 'small' benefits.

So the unemployed actually take a small proportion in jobseekers, but are probably on housing benefit, as are many (most?) low paid people in employment.

The very wealthy managed quite nicely, to avoid paying their due, and, to be honest, I can't work out HOW MP's can claim £98 million in expenses!!!
This id ON TOP of their salary......and Cameron had the audacity to refer to those not as wealthy as him as the 'Feckless Poor'

The wealthy are screwing the people of this country much more than the unemployed or the EU. All Cameron has done is to enable the wealthy to get even richer and caused discontent by blaming the poor, (and as pensions are included as a benefit) - pensioners, and the unemployed.

Maggie - it's £98 million :-D

I must say I would be astounded if it was £98 billion!!!!!

It's not about 'immigration' what about the constant EU directives that are churned out. From personal knowledge the WAG allocates a multi million pound budget to a Welsh organisation. This would probably be just sufficient with judicial use of the funds.

The EU throws out new directives which have to be implemented and BANG goes the budget. Targets become unattainable and the organisation is heavily criticised for failing in their duties. The majority of the directives only benefit a couple of member states but all have to comply.

Where is the sense in that?

Just read through this interesting thread. Pity a couple of posts have been RRd as maybe they were part of the discussion but we won't know now. However, I was going to say what Sue said about the EU. It is not just about immigration that people are fed up with the EU. I think most are disillusioned because of the seemingly irritating directives that come out of it which gives the impression that we are not responsible for our own laws etc. The overuling of our own judiciary, the instructions of paying out claims for 'infringeing' the 'Human Rights' of prisoners for example.

I also think the votes gained by UKIP were partly due to the frustration at the main parties not understanding how the electorate feel. More or less what OFIG said.

UKIP seems to attract councillors who are sexist racist and homophobic amongst other things. They've fought the campaign largely on immigration, aided by a media which highlights any negative Muslim or immigrant stories it can. People have chosen to vote for this party. Don't know if that can all be all put down to protest voting. The far right wing is appealing to people (look at France) and I just hope this is a temporary blip.