The UKIPs.

[Tom]

If you think the minimum wage has any effect on people's lives you are seriously mistaken. Being paid a guaranteed amount per hour when your guaranteed hours of work per work are zero is meaningless.

Communism-lite it most certainly is. Half-arsed measures that have no effect.

You'll be telling me about the number of people in work being a noteworthy statistic next.

 

[TheMan]

If you think the minimum wage has any effect on people's lives you are seriously mistaken. Being paid a guaranteed amount per hour when your guaranteed hours of work per work are zero is meaningless.

Communism-lite it most certainly is. Half-arsed measures that have no effect.

You'll be telling me about the number of people in work being a noteworthy statistic next.

Hang on, hang on, you can't throw Zero Hours in with Living Wage lol!

Zero Hours have a place, for those who want them, I think they should have a certain place for people who NEED them - there's a need both ways at times for those kinds of contracts, as poor as they are, but how that marries to the living wage - they're in utter contradiction to each other.

It is not remotely communism lite. The living wage is a proven way to increase the general levels of living standards, seriously, really only needs the most cursory of research on the matter. It's about ensuring people are not taken advantage of, if that's what you call communism....

 

[Tom]

The living wage is now set at £9.15 an hour in London and £7.85 an hour in the rest of the UK. Tell me how that means anything at all if you don't know how many hours of work a week you are willing to get.

There is no place for zero-hours contracts. They are wrong as they employer business and not the worker. They were created to counter the European Union legislation which guarantees that workers are not exploited in terms of being forced to work excessive hours or not getting paid for holidays. To keep this on subject, the zero-hour contracts have thrived under this Conservative-led government and would thrive even more under a UKIP, pro-business, right-wing, private-ruled state. Free of any 'interference' from the 'meddling' EU, where the government can empower business and the private sector continuously.

 

[Martin]

If you can draw a link between minimum wage laws and communism I'd be happy to hear it but I think you'll struggle unless you go down the Ayn Rand route. Communism is a system without states, money, labour, social class, etc. Pretty sure George Osborne wasn't planning a proletariat revolution when he raised it to £6.50.

I do agree with what Gary said, that we should do more to help other countries. not to control movement of people but just because it's the right thing to do. It's interesting how UKIP are against foreign aid and also against immigration, they, and anyone with those views, are condemning people in places affected by war, poverty, whatever, to stay there, because of an accident of birth, while their accident of birth luckily landed them in a better place.

 

[Tom]

The loose theme of everyone being as well off as everyone else and not being exploited = communism.

Note how I described it as lite - that means that the idea is sort of being flirted with/bits are being picked at but ultimately it achieves nothing. You're arguing at too finer points of what I'm saying, it's blatantly obvious what I'm arguing against.

 

[TheMan]

To keep this on subject, the zero-hour contracts have thrived under this Conservative-led government and would thrive even more under a UKIP, pro-business, right-wing, private-ruled state.

I am confused.

One moment you're suggesting living wage etc is communism lite, which as @Blaze so eloquently notes, is impossible - and yet above you seem to be condemning the opposite with Zero Hours, which I also disagree about having no place.

Some businesses require them upon set up, and it can suit people who need extremely flexible working conditions. They should be fiercely regulated, restricted, and monitored so that they remain beneficial for those who require them and not exploitative as right now they most clearly are.

I'm a little confused by where you stand Tom. Maybe I have misread or wrongly interpreted the meaning behind some of your posts.

Let's not confuse a morally just society with communism, which was not morally just and a failure by it's very nature.

 

[Tom]

I've criticised the minimum wage and I've criticised zero hours contracts, my position of attacking business and supporting workers is clear.

I think it's the communism-lite expression that you've become hung up on and dare I say obsessed with. Maybe it would have been better for me to say socialism-lite, half-arsed leftism.

You're trying to identify my political alignment based on the phrases I'm using, that's where you're going wrong. The phrases I use bracketed with lite/half-arsed do not mean I am against those positions in their purist forms. As I've said above and have been perfectly clear, it is the half-arsed approach that achieves NOTHING in reality that I have the issue with.

 

[Martin]

A solution would be the basic income, but that's another topic entirely (which I'm sure exists on here?).

 

[Tom]

Yep - the only reason I brought these issues up were because people need to be clear what UKIP represents beyond the obvious policy of wanting to get out of Europe.

 

[Martin]

My apologies too, I misread your position. But I do disagree about the minimum wage. It can be manipulated, it isn't always good, but it's something. A token gesture, but something. Much bigger steps are needed, but we've got to start somewhere. Switzerland is having a referendum on the basic income, hopefully it passes, they implement it and we follow suit.

 

[Adam]

As for the fruit debate in the EU, that was merely an example, but the main problem people have with the EU is that you have a bunch of people over in Brussels making rules which effect us, or any other EU country for that matter.

I totally agree with that, but what I don't get is why that's any different to people in London doing the exact same? Surely the point of democracy is for everyone to be able to self determine the laws and legislation that effect them, as opposed to it all being centralized and hierarchical in nature? I live in Leeds, which is over a hundred miles away from both Brussels and London, so in both cases the laws which effect me are set by people who live miles away, regardless of them coming from EU or Tories. A lot of the UKIP voters I know say that they feel like the average British person isn't represented or valued by the current government, so in that case wouldn't it be more holistic and less hypocritical to be against both Westminster and Brussels, instead of just one?

 

[Tom]

Farage believes in strong centralised government - he just resents Westminster's authority over everyone else being reduced by the EU. I don't recall UKIP talking of devolution or regional assemblies etc. If you think you aren't being represented now north of Watford then it will certainly be no better under UKIP.

The danger is a lot of people don't know what the hell UKIP stands for, but they are often the same people that buy and believe what The Sun says.

 

[TheMan]

Farage believes in strong centralised government - he just resents Westminster's authority over everyone else being reduced by the EU. I don't recall UKIP talking of devolution or regional assemblies etc. If you think you aren't being represented now north of Watford then it will certainly be no better under UKIP.

The danger is a lot of people don't know what the hell UKIP stands for, but they are often the same people that buy and believe what The Sun says.

This is so true Comrade Tom

"Don't let Brussels take away the power, then we can't tell you what to do!!"

The irony is, we're only allowed to take votes on things they tell us we're allowed to do it.

"Referendum". Like the AV vs PR stunt.

PR has it's problems like all forms, but it is the closest form of democratic representation and that's why none of the main parties want it! They'd be screwed with that system.

It's like the Tories giving the Scot's devolution, like it's some gracious act of democratic altruism for Scotland, then working on the no vote... working PERFECTLY (no surprise, when headed up by a PR man, and my goodness Cameron is good at that job!).

Result? Less power in Scotland, slowly working towards taking Scottish power/votes away from Westminster, which decidedly weakens Labour, keep the economic benefits, let them think they did them a favour.

How they're getting away with this is astonishing, and it's all the same!

Lib Dems wanted PR, not AV, as it would strengthen them. Labour wants strong ties with Scotland as it maintains their share, whilst also edging right to pick up voters, Cameron reworks boundaries and our relationship with Scotland in what for the Tories really is a masterstroke (Tories often come across as baffoons like Boris et al, they're entirely the opposite! They're clinical, cold and calculating!).

Whilst all this is going on, UKIP see a chance to pick up on the biggest fears of most in the UK and play on it, "who is running this country" "flooded by immigrants" etc.

The lot of them are an absolute disgrace.

There are good members of parliament in all parties I believe, but I do not believe there is ANY good "politics".

 

[Martin]

What gets mentioned less regarding UKIP is how to deal with them. Shouting "racist" at them, whilst accurate, isn't helpful. By now most people will have either decided they're racist and are not-UKIP, or decided they're not/aren't bothered if they are and are pro-UKIP. The only way people will change their mind is UKIP exposing themselves, which they do often anyway. Point out their racism when specific things happen, but taking them down needs more than that.

And calling them out only goes so far. We need to do much better, point out what's wrong with them, why it's wrong, and what the alternative is, put a good argument for it. People aren't interested in stuff like immigration having an actual net benefit when they're afraid a Polish person is going to take their job. But if we can show the fears are unfounded, show that Farage is the biggest fraud in the history of politics (him being pictured at the hunt has been great for damaging his anti-establishment image).

We need better opposition, but we're at the mercy of the media. They only give us the awful Owen Jones and Russell Brand, who, whatever your opinion of him is, lacks credibility with a lot of people, and isn't always taken seriously. Meanwhile the Green Party, despite having an MP for years and a leader who actually acts like the sort of person you'd want to vote for, are shoved to the sidelines.

 

[TheMan]

Meanwhile the Green Party, despite having an MP for years and a leader who actually acts like the sort of person you'd want to vote for, are shoved to the sidelines.

Because of different things I've been involved in, I've had the pleasure of "speaking" to Natalie a few times and also a couple of other higher ranking Green members. It's that direct dealing that made me realise they're genuine people who need a better voice. I've debated things with them that I don't agree with, but it's always very reasoned and polite, ever tried that with someone like Grant Schapps? Good luck.

I genuinely learned a lot from them, and yes they have policies I am not sure quite sit right with me, but they're measured, considered and definitely arise from a point of stable strong principle in a fairer economy for everyone.

The fact they get so LITTLE time is a disgrace.

If many anti-europeans who actually wanted a referendum realised they'd have more chance with someone like The Greens, they'd be less likely to look at the options and think:

I don't like Europe, who do I vote for? Labour? No. Tories? Don't trust them... UKIP? Well, they can appear a bit racist but they're my only choice.

I don't think everyone who votes for them or supports them realises, knows, or feels they have a choice.

The best thing The Green Party could do in my opinion is change their branding. As soon as you hear it, even now, I still think "environmentalism". So therefore not a suitable candidate for wider reaching issues.

They need to reinvent themselves, not so that they lose their identity, but to actually REVEAL their identity to a wider audience. "The Green Party" kind of shoe horns them into a box that means people don't seem to really pay too much attention.

The irony that they have a stronger EU policy than UKIP, more measured, and more considered as a whole is ironic given even I thought they were fiercely PRO-EU for some reason as it seems to be a staple of the "left".

Not so.

 

[GaryH]

What gets mentioned less regarding UKIP is how to deal with them. Shouting "racist" at them, whilst accurate, isn't helpful.

Whaaaoooo hold on right there! Stop the train!

This is the EXACT reason why people are voting UKIP. When people have tried to have a sensible debate about their concerns regarding immigration they immediately get shot down as being 'racist'.

And that's exactly why people are voting UKIP because they feel that at last there is a party listening to people about their concerns.

You cannot say that a person voting UKIP is racist. That's wrong. Some people will be yes, but I would say a lot of people voting UKIP just want their concerns relating to uncontrolled immigration addressed by a political party

Saying someone is racist just because they have concerns is EXACTLY what has brought about the rise of UKIP and its steady growth in popularity!

 

[Martin]

I'm talking about the party. And make no mistake, UKIP are a racist party. I'd make a list but I'd hit the character limit. Safe to say, when the leader of a party has referred to black people as "nig-nogs" and is proud to have won over people who used to vote for Griffin, that party has a problem with racism.

The only way to have a sensible debate about immigration is to exclude UKIP. We can't discuss it sensibly with Farage making comments about how Romanian neighbours are worse than German ones, and how hearing foreign voices in public makes him nervous, despite being married to a German.

 

[Harv]

People are voting for UKIP because the Farage is more appealing than his contenders. The majority of people are very much fed up with the current state of politics (I can provide loads of figures which prove this if you want them, I recently used them in an essay about the reasons for UKIP's success) and people vote principally based upon the leader of the party, not local candidates or party policies (likewise). Regardless of accomplishments and actual policies, Clegg is seen as a liar, Miliband as incompetent and Cameron as out of touch. Saw what you want about his ideas and principles, but Farage is a gifted talker. I'm not saying I agree with what he says, but he knows how to use his mouth and how to present himself and how to grab attention - he plays his part excellently. The public sees this (thanks to his massive overexposure) and votes accordingly. They want change and whether he can (or even should) deliver it or not, he is the only party leader offering it at the moment. We all know what happens when a social or economic problem develops in a country; far-rightedness, Nationalism and extremism become popularized. We just have to be careful how far we let Farage go - he can play the working man hero that the public is crying for very well, but make no mistakes, the man is competent and he is a well-crafted politician.

Any interested in the reasons for UKIP's success should read this - Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain by Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin. A very fascinating read.

 

[BigT]

I don't like to hear foreign language's either blaze. Does that make me racist?
I live in England and it's language is English, hundreds of thousands of people have died to protect this so I don't believe it's something we should just say it doesn't matter.

Going back to your point about its not the immigrants fault that they are reducing the wages for the poorest in our society, true but it's not the fair simply to say it's business fat cats seizing the chance to make more profit.
If only it was that easy.
I can only talk of my industry which is food processing, you know the one which the BBC likes to portray that without immigration we would have no food. Wrong.
You see I am old enough to remember when I started and everyone in the industry was British. (And not always white!) They earned about £9-10 per hour twenty years ago.
So what happened? New Labour trying to shore up its vote decided to open the floodgates to Eastern Europe creating a huge pool of unskilled cheap labour at the same time consumers (that's me and you) were demanding cheaper food prices so with all of this cheap labour flooding in guess where it ended up?
Did the companies doing this make more money? No they made less because consumers wanted it cheaper still so in a lot of cases the company went to the wall.

So in actual fact it's us the consumer that is to blame for immigration, us to blame for the poorest being made poorer and us to blame for the lack of manufacturing in the UK.
All by our constant thirst for cheap stuff.

 

[TheMan]

I think you make some salient points there @BigT

I'd caution here on one thing though, supermarket profits etc; of course people will take to get cheaper food, all cheaper products in general - but when marketed at, I don't think it's fair to blame the public.

I don't think when the supermarkets alone are making billions in profits that we can say "Oi, consumer, it's your fault!"