Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Characterising UKIP?

Right-wing populist. I'm not sure where the "left-leaning economics" stuff on this thread is coming from. Certainly I've not seen anything amongst the policies or from their leaders...some of their supporters/voters might have left wing economic ideas, but that just goes to show that they're not voting on those criteria.
 
Right-wing populist. I'm not sure where the "left-leaning economics" stuff on this thread is coming from. Certainly I've not seen anything amongst the policies or from their leaders...some of their supporters/voters might have left wing economic ideas, but that just goes to show that they're not voting on those criteria.
I'm not sure that anyone did mention "left-leaning economics". In fact, i know they didn't.
 
mentioned in idris' comparison with nz1 & via city am article...
Nah, not really - idris point was a follow on from something else that didn't really fir here and the city am article - nah again. Neither were offered characterisation or defence of the idea of "left-leaning economics" being a key part of UKIP policy.
 
Nah, not really - idris point was a follow on from something else that didn't really fir here and the city am article - nah again. Neither were offered characterisation or defence of the idea of "left-leaning economics" being a key part of UKIP policy.
yeah, I shouldn't skim read...
 
Labour are committed to the same spending plans as the Tories so borrowing is not an option for them and it is international pressure that is driving this and not home politics. In my view the best way to address the PSBR is to lower tax as this will boost the economy and more tax will be raised as a net result. And we have very recent evidence that this was the case under Thatcher....as the Eighties rolled on, she was able to finally pay down all outstanding debt. Then we had Major where the country became a little too comfortable and smug. We all know what happened after that, another round of inept Labour govt. Is it just me or do all Labour govt's end in complete disaster??

Why not write into law that whoever is in government MUST balance the books year on year. If any year there is a deficit, then the budget for the following year will have the necessary cuts/adjustments to ensure that we never stray from the bottom line.

The reality for politicians would be to reign them in from firstly making wild promises and secondly if they did fail to control the budget, they could be kicked out and replaced with others that would make it happen.

It's all pretty simple really....but someone needs to grow a pair, stand out from the crowd and sell the idea to the people.

I wonder if Nigel could do it ?

LOL
 
Labour are committed to the same spending plans as the Tories so borrowing is not an option for them...(snip)

Why not write into law that whoever is in government MUST balance the books year on year. I....

It's all pretty simple really....but someone needs to grow a pair, stand out from the crowd and sell the idea to the people.

I wonder if Nigel could do it ?

ffsear, I suspect that you have even less idea about politics than UKIP. Don't waste any more time posting here.
 
I know a couple of UKIP voters who were Conservative voters. After talking with them I just don't understand why they don't vote for at least the BNP. I've asked them why, and they say that the BNP is too extremist; but if you heard their views you would think that the BNP is too moderate for them. Seriously!
Pissed up bravado. Know people who talk this shit and have family the same. One who alternates between not voting BNP because they're too extreme and not voting for them as they are not extreme enough. Big mouths that won't follow it through. You'll see people come in strong " I hate immigrants" then a bit later "The ones that work are ok" or "Well I do feel sorry for some of the ones that are really under threat" possibly "I just don't like 'em coming here and changing stuff but most are ok". Often gets to "It's the Muslims that are the problem" later "well some of them are ok I just don't want mosques everywhere" or "Most of them just want to live their lives its the extremists I don't like" and on it goes. People will say they're going to vote BNP when they're not and even say a lot of the time "but they'd take it too far"
 
mentioned in idris' comparison with nz1 & via city am article...

That was specifically in relation to NZ1st, though, and not UKIP. I should have thought it through a bit more, I suppose. Maybe a better comparison is the Reform party in early 90s Canada, who emerged as a right-populist insurgency in the western provinces, and who later merged with the remnants of the old Progressive Conservatives after that party's collapse. That produced a new Canadian conservatism that is much more looney-tunes hard right (socially and economically) than the old patrician "one nation tory" PC was.
 
ffsear, I suspect that you have even less idea about politics than UKIP. Don't waste any more time posting here.



Lol, I've confused myself with that one! i was replying to a thread on a totally different forum (not even U75) about PSBR . I write my posts into MS word to spell check them (due to my dyslexia). That post was supposed to go on an economics forum and somehow I've copied and pasted it here.

Must drink less in the evenings!

Ignore!
 
Labour are committed to the same spending plans as the Tories so borrowing is not an option for them and it is international pressure that is driving this and not home politics. In my view the best way to address the PSBR is to lower tax as this will boost the economy and more tax will be raised as a net result. And we have very recent evidence that this was the case under Thatcher....as the Eighties rolled on, she was able to finally pay down all outstanding debt. Then we had Major where the country became a little too comfortable and smug. We all know what happened after that, another round of inept Labour govt. Is it just me or do all Labour govt's end in complete disaster??

Why not write into law that whoever is in government MUST balance the books year on year. If any year there is a deficit, then the budget for the following year will have the necessary cuts/adjustments to ensure that we never stray from the bottom line.

The reality for politicians would be to reign them in from firstly making wild promises and secondly if they did fail to control the budget, they could be kicked out and replaced with others that would make it happen.

It's all pretty simple really....but someone needs to grow a pair, stand out from the crowd and sell the idea to the people.

I wonder if Nigel could do it ?
Do you have a bachelor's degree in economics, by any chance?
It would explain the lack of knowledge of recent economic and political history and lack of basic political nous, you see.
 
are you an asshole everyday?

edit: added to ignore list. Bored of his passive aggressive attacks on everyone.
 
Last edited:
Labour are committed to the same spending plans as the Tories so borrowing is not an option for them and it is international pressure that is driving this and not home politics. In my view the best way to address the PSBR is to lower tax as this will boost the economy and more tax will be raised as a net result. And we have very recent evidence that this was the case under Thatcher....as the Eighties rolled on, she was able to finally pay down all outstanding debt. Then we had Major where the country became a little too comfortable and smug. We all know what happened after that, another round of inept Labour govt. Is it just me or do all Labour govt's end in complete disaster??

Why not write into law that whoever is in government MUST balance the books year on year. If any year there is a deficit, then the budget for the following year will have the necessary cuts/adjustments to ensure that we never stray from the bottom line.

The reality for politicians would be to reign them in from firstly making wild promises and secondly if they did fail to control the budget, they could be kicked out and replaced with others that would make it happen.

It's all pretty simple really....but someone needs to grow a pair, stand out from the crowd and sell the idea to the people.

I wonder if Nigel could do it ?

To balance this country's books in the space of one year you'd have to sell Wales.

I suppose we could offer the buyer a discount if they agreed to take Yorkshire off our hands as well.
 
To balance this country's books in the space of one year you'd have to sell Wales.

I suppose we could offer the buyer a discount if they agreed to take Yorkshire off our hands as well.

Out of curiosity, is that just the land value of the principality or does that include everything on the land as well? Because somehow I doubt that the land value alone would cover it.
 
Out of curiosity, is that just the land value of the principality or does that include everything on the land as well? Because somehow I doubt that the land value alone would cover it.

The lot. Mountains, sheep, rugby players...more sheep.
 
Labour are committed to the same spending plans as the Tories so borrowing is not an option for them and it is international pressure that is driving this and not home politics. In my view the best way to address the PSBR is to lower tax as this will boost the economy and more tax will be raised as a net result. And we have very recent evidence that this was the case under Thatcher....as the Eighties rolled on, she was able to finally pay down all outstanding debt.

This is demonstrable bollocks. What you're talking about here is the Medium Term Financial Strategy. Unfortunately for you there's a fair bit of academic literature on this. All of it contradicts what you're saying.

Thatcher reduced higher rate income taxes but that didn't result in an increase in income from that source. She did that by a combination of massive increases in VAT (hitting those with the least hardest) and increased income from selling of North Sea oil/gas - utterly fucking stupid - and the first (smaller) round of privatisations. It didn't boost the economy euther - in fact she very nearly killed it economy in that period. Her commitment to monetarism (which amounted to concentrating on strengthening the pound) led to the destruction of much of our manufacturing base, as exports could no longer compete after the shifts in exchange rates (one of her own strategists has since admitted this was actually about intentionally increasing unemployment in order to discipline labour and weaken unions and absolutely nothing to do with strengthening the economy - which makes sense cos it achieved the former and the opposite of the latter).

This led to the economy tanking, which was hidden by the increased revenues from North Sea hydrocarbons.

As for introducing legislation forcing governments to balance the books - why do you hate democracy? If people want to elect a government that will run a deficit - maybe in order to stimulate the economy - why shouldn't they be allowed to? The idea is a fantasy anyway, it's not the kind of thing you can legislate for - it's at about the same level of lunacy as wanting to legislate against recessions.

All you've really done here is show what a credulous fuckwit you are - you've just swallowed the Tory line (which is a line even they know to be untrue - even right wing scholars agree with the majority of the above). Seriously, I'm actually embarrassed to read that post.
 
This is demonstrable bollocks. What you're talking about here is the Medium Term Financial Strategy. Unfortunately for you there's a fair bit of academic literature on this. All of it contradicts what you're saying.

Thatcher reduced higher rate income taxes but that didn't result in an increase in income from that source. She did that by a combination of massive increases in VAT (hitting those with the least hardest) and increased income from selling of North Sea oil/gas - utterly fucking stupid - and the first (smaller) round of privatisations. It didn't boost the economy euther - in fact she very nearly killed it economy in that period. Her commitment to monetarism (which amounted to concentrating on strengthening the pound) led to the destruction of much of our manufacturing base, as exports could no longer compete after the shifts in exchange rates (one of her own strategists has since admitted this was actually about intentionally increasing unemployment in order to discipline labour and weaken unions and absolutely nothing to do with strengthening the economy - which makes sense cos it achieved the former and the opposite of the latter).

This led to the economy tanking, which was hidden by the increased revenues from North Sea hydrocarbons.

As for introducing legislation forcing governments to balance the books - why do you hate democracy? If people want to elect a government that will run a deficit - maybe in order to stimulate the economy - why shouldn't they be allowed to? The idea is a fantasy anyway, it's not the kind of thing you can legislate for - it's at about the same level of lunacy as wanting to legislate against recessions.

All you've really done here is show what a credulous fuckwit you are - you've just swallowed the Tory line (which is a line even they know to be untrue - even right wing scholars agree with the majority of the above). Seriously, I'm actually embarrassed to read that post.


did you miss my next post?
 
You need to judge the context of the conversation. I sense much anger in you. I'm out x x :p

So in a different context the demonstrably false claims you made would have been true? What kind of economics forum is it? Counter-factual economic history or something?
 
Back
Top Bottom