Prague, all due respect (and I mean that because you generally write very well and sensibly) but (a) this isn't that big a deal (b) I'm sure if you thought about it you'd realise that if offering guarantees came at no cost to manufactureres they'd offer them without any laws. If it does have a cost, the manufacturer and/or the retailer and/or the customer has to pay it. IMHO that's just plain common sense and I'm not going to undertake a comprehensive study of international kettle prices to prove it.
I do think "british values" is a very wooly and deliberately undefined phrase as it will mean whatever the reader wants it to be.
For me it means democracy, tolerant and welcoming to new ideas and new people, world leading music, film, literature and fashion, humour, pubs, football and the seaside
It that what other people think? Is it what UKIP think? We don't know as they haven't said. Some would say it means bad food and binge drinking,
Just as Major's "Victorian values" were unclear. Pollution, poverty, exploitation and child prostitution with no votes for most man and all women. That is not what Major meant. He was trying to hint at hard work, family (while shagging one of his ministers), free market capitalism.
I will give you music, film, literature, fashion, humour, pubs and football.
Prague, all due respect (and I mean that because you generally write very well and sensibly) but (a) this isn't that big a deal (b) I'm sure if you thought about it you'd realise that if offering guarantees came at no cost to manufactureres they'd offer them without any laws. If it does have a cost, the manufacturer and/or the retailer and/or the customer has to pay it. IMHO that's just plain common sense and I'm not going to undertake a comprehensive study of international kettle prices to prove it.
If it isn't that big a deal why did you question what Prague said in the first place Jints? ;-)
With respect, the point is Dipenhall, if it's in a manifesto then we must assume that UKIP would bring in legislation to fulfill their manifesto pledge, so at some point "British values" must be defined. You can't say in an act of parliament "We all know what it means" - it simply must be clarified it and it appears that even we, a small group of people, would not be able to come to agreement on what it means.
"Values" means principles or standards of behaviour, British means traditionally associated with Britain. Not sure what the problem is, apart from if you insist on a definition, it will be a mix and match list different for every citizen. UKIP have a policy that means all things to all men and can sort out what means most to most men afterwards. Surely clever politics.
If the character of the policies meet an individual's own perception of traditional British values the manifesto will have met UKIP's objectives. If UKIP have misjudged peoples instincts and not hit the spot on enough mix and match features they will fail.
Those who need a definition of British values probably lean towards the European concept of every aspect of daily life needing to conform to codified written regulations rather than following a principle.
You don't need an Act of Parliament to define the character of a particular piece of legislation, people will assess its character for themselves.
So if a party stated on their manifesto "We are going to do some stuff to make things better", presumably as you do not require a definition you would accept that as a reason for giving them your X come election time, Dippenhall?
It's okay to use the term "British values" when chatting in the pub with your likeminded mates, they know exactly what you mean; when a complete stranger writes it as a goal on his manifesto I think that anyone sensible would want a bit more flesh on the bones before committing to voting for them.
Can I ask where you lived in order to come to the following conclusion please?
"Those who need a definition of British values probably lean towards the European concept of every aspect of daily life needing to conform to codified written regulations rather than following a principle."
Prague, all due respect (and I mean that because you generally write very well and sensibly) but (a) this isn't that big a deal (b) I'm sure if you thought about it you'd realise that if offering guarantees came at no cost to manufactureres they'd offer them without any laws. If it does have a cost, the manufacturer and/or the retailer and/or the customer has to pay it. IMHO that's just plain common sense and I'm not going to undertake a comprehensive study of international kettle prices to prove it.
If it isn't that big a deal why did you question what Prague said in the first place Jints? ;-)
A guarantee is effectively insurance. Insurance always costs money because it places a risk on the insurer.
I don't think you can compare prices across different retail markets and suggest that any difference is due to the length of the guarantee. There are hundreds of different factors. The cost of electronic eqipment may well be lower in Germany than it is in the UK (I have no idea) but this could be due to competition, shipping costs, rents on shops, lots of different things. There is no equivalent to the EU Directive in China or in the US and prices are significantly less expensive in both countries but I doubt that the requirement of a guarantee in the EU is a particularly significant factor.
As it happens, I don't have any particular problem with most EU Directives. They are aimed at creating a single market in the EU, which is such an overwhelmingly advantage for the UK that concerns over specific directives are really very trivial in comparison.
I'm not. You are. You claim that if the kettle in Currys has a two year guarantee then the price will go up.
It could be that prices do go up due to the guarantee but go up equally in different parts of the EU.
So a kettle in the UK would cost £30 but with the guarantee is now £40 (guessed numbers) and the equivalent is the same in German and elsewhere.
Not that it really matters.
Next week EU directive on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
If you paid £40 for a kettle you can afford to fund the Museum single-handed :-)
It matters in the sense that anti-EU fanatics cite "Brussels bureaucracy, meddling with our laws and imposing stupid ones on us" as their key argument for getting out, once the immigration one has fallen apart, and then when the truth is shown to be nowhere near as black and white as the Daily Mail told them, they turn round and say, "oh well its not about directives". Isn't that part of the "Sovereignty" argument, a word Farage is very fond of? If not, what is "sovereignty" about, then?
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
How true this is. I was astonished to hear this morning that over 55's are going to be allowed to dip into their pension fund to spend as they wish. What a bonanza for Bookies, Holiday companies, Pubs etc, but what a disaster when 5 to 10 years later they are skint and looking for help. Being at this end of my life is becoming a gift.
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Whereas, Nigel Farage was educated at a comprehensive? Oh no, he went to a £36,324 per year public school.
I have no problem with the fact that he - or anyone else - went to a public school. But you can't criticise some for doing so and not all of them!
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Whereas, Nigel Farage was educated at a comprehensive? Oh no, he went to a £36,324 per year public school.
I have no problem with the fact that he - or anyone else - went to a public school. But you can't criticise some for doing so and not all of them!
When Nigel went there local boys could pass an exam and attend for free which I believe is what he did.
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Whereas, Nigel Farage was educated at a comprehensive? Oh no, he went to a £36,324 per year public school.
I have no problem with the fact that he - or anyone else - went to a public school. But you can't criticise some for doing so and not all of them!
When Nigel went there local boys could pass an exam and attend for free which I believe is what he did.
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Whereas, Nigel Farage was educated at a comprehensive? Oh no, he went to a £36,324 per year public school.
I have no problem with the fact that he - or anyone else - went to a public school. But you can't criticise some for doing so and not all of them!
When Nigel went there local boys could pass an exam and attend for free which I believe is what he did.
Labour put a stop to that element of social mobility like so much more.
Doesn't say in that interview he didn't pay to go there.
Doesn't say he did either.
The fact that my source,THE GUARDIAN not renowned for its love of public schools, mentions free scholarships does suggest that he probably did get one although it is not certain. Hence my comment "which I BELIEVE is what he did."
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Whereas, Nigel Farage was educated at a comprehensive? Oh no, he went to a £36,324 per year public school.
I have no problem with the fact that he - or anyone else - went to a public school. But you can't criticise some for doing so and not all of them!
When Nigel went there local boys could pass an exam and attend for free which I believe is what he did.
Labour put a stop to that element of social mobility like so much more.
Doesn't say in that interview he didn't pay to go there.
Doesn't say he did either.
The fact that my source,THE GUARDIAN not renowned for its love of public schools, mentions free scholarships does suggest that he probably did get one although it is not certain. Hence my comment "which I BELIEVE is what he did."
But, to use Grandpa's phrase, he's still a "public school idiot". Because he went to a public school and, well the rest is obvious...
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Whereas, Nigel Farage was educated at a comprehensive? Oh no, he went to a £36,324 per year public school.
I have no problem with the fact that he - or anyone else - went to a public school. But you can't criticise some for doing so and not all of them!
When Nigel went there local boys could pass an exam and attend for free which I believe is what he did.
Labour put a stop to that element of social mobility like so much more.
Doesn't say in that interview he didn't pay to go there.
Doesn't say he did either.
The fact that my source,THE GUARDIAN not renowned for its love of public schools, mentions free scholarships does suggest that he probably did get one although it is not certain. Hence my comment "which I BELIEVE is what he did."
But all that article says is "many of the boys had won free scholarships". I'm fairly sure if he had not paid this would have been expressed to tie in with his man of the people image he wants to try and portray rather than the son of a stockbroker who went to Dulwich College and worked as a commodities trader.
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Whereas, Nigel Farage was educated at a comprehensive? Oh no, he went to a £36,324 per year public school.
I have no problem with the fact that he - or anyone else - went to a public school. But you can't criticise some for doing so and not all of them!
When Nigel went there local boys could pass an exam and attend for free which I believe is what he did.
Labour put a stop to that element of social mobility like so much more.
Doesn't say in that interview he didn't pay to go there.
Doesn't say he did either.
The fact that my source,THE GUARDIAN not renowned for its love of public schools, mentions free scholarships does suggest that he probably did get one although it is not certain. Hence my comment "which I BELIEVE is what he did."
But all that article says is "many of the boys had won free scholarships". I'm fairly sure if he had not paid this would have been expressed to tie in with his man of the people image he wants to try and portray rather than the son of a stockbroker who went to Dulwich College and worked as a commodities trader.
Agreed, there is zero chance that Farage won a scholarship and we wouldn't all know about it every time this "man of the people" nonsense comes up.
You do realise that having a 2 year guarantee on a kettle makes that kettle more expensive don't you? How about letting consumers decide how much they want to pay for teh benefit of a guarantee?
Goods from John Lewis are more expensive than most but they do very well because they give out a 5 year guarantee on many of their products. When I buy a cheap product like a memory stick, I don't want a guarantee and I certainly don't want to pay for it.
Hadn't thought about this.
Effectively all of these goods come with these "2 year warranties" knobheads on commission try and sell you whenever you buy something over a fiver at Argos or PC World.
This obviously pushes the price up, like you said.
So does the same principle apply to the toy safety directive or gas safety or electrical safety or consumer credit or the additional rights consumers get when they purchase over the internet as a few small examples where British consumers (and businesses btw) have benefited from EU membership?
Should we scrap that lot and just really on a leap of faith that those toys we buy the kids at Christmas are probably alright...but what they hey they were a few pence cheaper!
I think the point being made was that a lot of EU law is not "silly", bureaucracy but of much value to us as consumers.
Why is it, that when someone says some EU directives are silly and uneccessary, we have people saying, "should we scrap all their directives then, despite many of their directives being good ?"
Why always twisting things ? If I say I'm not happy with some of the laws of football because they are silly, like getting a yellow card for taking your shirt off, it doesn't mean we should scrap the lot does it ?
Yes, but UKIP are not arguing for us to alter the current 'directives' of the EU - they want full and unconditional withdrawal from the organisation.
Precisely. If the EU became more flexible and let members have more of a say,
But member countries do have a say. A very big one. I mentioned previously that the only directive I know anything about is MiFID and for that the consultations between different countries went on seemingly endlessly. I doubt other directives are any different. They are NOT the random pronouncements of some EU deity. Of course, there needs to be a consensus, which can be very difficult as each country has its own agenda but they get there in the end. Personally I think it's just convenient for local countries' politicans to blame the EU to deflect criticism away from themselves. The UK population needs to be better informed about the processes within the EU. At the moment that is sadly lacking and lets hysterical nincompoops like Farage have a free reign.
I find myself in a rare case of agreement with @cafcfan ;-)
I've seen it argued elsewhere that one of the problems with the EU is that it is way too slow and bureaucratic to be effective. But the reason is that you have a huge amount of input from the member states each trying to tailor a directive to suit the needs of it citizens, businesses and political make up. There are a numerous technical committees, working groups, etc that are set up to try to reach the best possible compromise for the EU market as a whole, which is why sometimes it looks like “we’ve lost” over an issue.
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Whereas, Nigel Farage was educated at a comprehensive? Oh no, he went to a £36,324 per year public school.
I have no problem with the fact that he - or anyone else - went to a public school. But you can't criticise some for doing so and not all of them!
When Nigel went there local boys could pass an exam and attend for free which I believe is what he did.
Labour put a stop to that element of social mobility like so much more.
Whether he paid or not, he still went to a public school, and Miliband didn't. The OP left out extremely relevant information on one count and was wrong on the other.
Hard to take someone seriously when their evidence is that far wide of the mark, even if his overall point is a valid one...
Your last sentence appears to be false by the way Len, unless there has been a change of government in the last 48 hours since this web page was updated?
With respect, the point is Dipenhall, if it's in a manifesto then we must assume that UKIP would bring in legislation to fulfill their manifesto pledge, so at some point "British values" must be defined. You can't say in an act of parliament "We all know what it means" - it simply must be clarified it and it appears that even we, a small group of people, would not be able to come to agreement on what it means.
"Values" means principles or standards of behaviour, British means traditionally associated with Britain. Not sure what the problem is, apart from if you insist on a definition, it will be a mix and match list different for every citizen. UKIP have a policy that means all things to all men and can sort out what means most to most men afterwards. Surely clever politics.
If the character of the policies meet an individual's own perception of traditional British values the manifesto will have met UKIP's objectives. If UKIP have misjudged peoples instincts and not hit the spot on enough mix and match features they will fail.
Those who need a definition of British values probably lean towards the European concept of every aspect of daily life needing to conform to codified written regulations rather than following a principle.
You don't need an Act of Parliament to define the character of a particular piece of legislation, people will assess its character for themselves.
So if a party stated on their manifesto "We are going to do some stuff to make things better", presumably as you do not require a definition you would accept that as a reason for giving them your X come election time, Dippenhall?
It's okay to use the term "British values" when chatting in the pub with your likeminded mates, they know exactly what you mean; when a complete stranger writes it as a goal on his manifesto I think that anyone sensible would want a bit more flesh on the bones before committing to voting for them.
Can I ask where you lived in order to come to the following conclusion please?
"Those who need a definition of British values probably lean towards the European concept of every aspect of daily life needing to conform to codified written regulations rather than following a principle."
Did I suggest a UKIP manifesto would say "we are going to do some stuff that makes things better" or did I say it's more likely to contain policies which people interpreted in their own way as supporting their view of British values. UKIP is cutting itself some slack by promoting principles just like the other parties do in advance of finalising a manifesto. If UKIP says in its manifesto we are promoting British values by doing x, y and z not sure how that is different from any other party, you pays your money and you makes your choice. If UKIP say "we are going to do some stuff to promote British values" - period, I would agree there ceases to be any credibility.
I think we've established British values can't be defined, only described in very many different ways, it's a personal concept. Putting a perverse interpretation on what I said and refuting it doesn't advance the debate very far.
Probably making the point a bit clumsily, shouldn't have been personal, but I'm just taking a swipe at the Roman concept of law that predominant in Europe that codifies what you can and can't do. English law is based on principles that are interpreted and re-interpreted over time. The EU is driving us towards the European codified rule of law which is alien to our traditional English "live and let live" mentality and the principles of equity and upholding the rights of individuals. In fact whatever we think British values mean, I doubt it is unconnected to an attachment to those principles of our legal system.
Must be really annoying for Miliband that he didn't go to Private school and can't even strike a chord with the public better than a 3 year old with an out of tune guitar.
Also, if you are going to vote for someone based on whether they did/did not go to private school, you are a fool.
What's wrong with going to public school? I didn't but I work bloody hard to make sure my son does.
More important to me is an MP actually having a real working job prior to going into politics.
Very good point, it's a sad world when we prefer career politicians to people who have been successful in a job, and therefore "rich" who then enter politics.
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Whereas, Nigel Farage was educated at a comprehensive? Oh no, he went to a £36,324 per year public school.
I have no problem with the fact that he - or anyone else - went to a public school. But you can't criticise some for doing so and not all of them!
When Nigel went there local boys could pass an exam and attend for free which I believe is what he did.
Labour put a stop to that element of social mobility like so much more.
Whether he paid or not, he still went to a public school, and Miliband didn't. The OP left out extremely relevant information on one count and was wrong on the other.
Hard to take someone seriously when their evidence is that far wide of the mark, even if his overall point is a valid one...
Your last sentence appears to be false by the way Len, unless there has been a change of government in the last 48 hours since this web page was updated?
With respect, the point is Dipenhall, if it's in a manifesto then we must assume that UKIP would bring in legislation to fulfill their manifesto pledge, so at some point "British values" must be defined. You can't say in an act of parliament "We all know what it means" - it simply must be clarified it and it appears that even we, a small group of people, would not be able to come to agreement on what it means.
"Values" means principles or standards of behaviour, British means traditionally associated with Britain. Not sure what the problem is, apart from if you insist on a definition, it will be a mix and match list different for every citizen. UKIP have a policy that means all things to all men and can sort out what means most to most men afterwards. Surely clever politics.
If the character of the policies meet an individual's own perception of traditional British values the manifesto will have met UKIP's objectives. If UKIP have misjudged peoples instincts and not hit the spot on enough mix and match features they will fail.
Those who need a definition of British values probably lean towards the European concept of every aspect of daily life needing to conform to codified written regulations rather than following a principle.
You don't need an Act of Parliament to define the character of a particular piece of legislation, people will assess its character for themselves.
So if a party stated on their manifesto "We are going to do some stuff to make things better", presumably as you do not require a definition you would accept that as a reason for giving them your X come election time, Dippenhall?
It's okay to use the term "British values" when chatting in the pub with your likeminded mates, they know exactly what you mean; when a complete stranger writes it as a goal on his manifesto I think that anyone sensible would want a bit more flesh on the bones before committing to voting for them.
Can I ask where you lived in order to come to the following conclusion please?
"Those who need a definition of British values probably lean towards the European concept of every aspect of daily life needing to conform to codified written regulations rather than following a principle."
Did I suggest a UKIP manifesto would say "we are going to do some stuff that makes things better" or did I say it's more likely to contain policies which people interpreted in their own way as supporting their view of British values. UKIP is cutting itself some slack by promoting principles just like the other parties do in advance of finalising a manifesto. If UKIP says in its manifesto we are promoting British values by doing x, y and z not sure how that is different from any other party, you pays your money and you makes your choice. If UKIP say "we are going to do some stuff to promote British values" - period, I would agree there ceases to be any credibility.
I think we've established British values can't be defined, only described in very many different ways, it's a personal concept. Putting a perverse interpretation on what I said and refuting it doesn't advance the debate very far.
Probably making the point a bit clumsily, shouldn't have been personal, but I'm just taking a swipe at the Roman concept of law that predominant in Europe that codifies what you can and can't do. English law is based on principles that are interpreted and re-interpreted over time. The EU is driving us towards the European codified rule of law which is alien to our traditional English "live and let live" mentality and the principles of equity and upholding the rights of individuals. In fact whatever we think British values mean, I doubt it is unconnected to an attachment to those principles of our legal system.
No I suggested that saying upholding "British Values" is no different to saying "we are going to do some stuff that makes things better". I, in no way, shape or form implied that you did - how on earth have you come to that conclusion when I wrote "If a party stated..."?
I cannot make myself any clearer in what I mean, if you choose to deliberately pretend to misunderstand that so that you don't have to answer my point, there's not a lot more I can add.
That you can lump together cultures as diverse at Sweden, Romania and Portugal as having the "Roman concept of law" I find rather odd too.
Must be really annoying for Miliband that he didn't go to Private school and can't even strike a chord with the public better than a 3 year old with an out of tune guitar.
Also, if you are going to vote for someone based on whether they did/did not go to private school, you are a fool.
What's wrong with going to public school? I didn't but I work bloody hard to make sure my son does.
More important to me is an MP actually having a real working job prior to going into politics.
spot on, i hate this reverse snobbery that's crept in about people who went to public school. Do you really think at age 11/even earlier kids go "mum and dad, can i go to public school?". These are the same people who say 11+ etc is wrong because the children are too young to be judged. You couldn't make it up!
Two nonsenses that that been cropping up in this thread:
1) "Without the EU we wouldn't have (insert law here)"
Usually applied regarding human rights, working time directives, child labour, safety & warranty etc. So the idea is that if we hadn't entered the Common Market in 1973, children would be working in mines before and after school, we would have no human rights, people would be forced to work 60-70 hour weeks and our kettle from Currys would explode after 4 uses. I think the benefits of these pieces of legislation are perhaps more necessary for the members of the former Eastern bloc states than they are for countries like the UK and France, where they were previously suffering from lack of human rights, employment legislation and consumer protection.
2) "Our politicians should lead, not be led by public opinion."
This may have been true some time ago when we expected our best and brightest to help make up those being put forward for election. For the last few decades or so, this has not been the case. The best and brightest know their skills are much more valuable outside of the arena of politics and they know they will be far better rewarded in terms of renumeration, job satisfaction and lifestyle.
What you now get in a politician is a mickey mouse degree from the University of Name-Drop who would struggle to get a job interview anywhere outside a fast food outlet. The only reason why politicians get selected for seats or get on the inside track to power within their parties is thanks to connections and networking rather than talent and ability. There's a reason why a growing number of Labour candidates share a surname with a sitting or previous Labour politician. The otherwise unimpressive Miliband brothers would have gotten nowhere near the leadership if their dad wasn't a major player in British socialism and got them in the inner cabal of the Labour party when they were young. The Tories are not much better with the number of hereditary titles and lands some of their MPs can make a claim to.
MPs are no longer independent, bright individuals who can be trusted to act on the behalf of their constituents based on his own judgement and not on how popular policies are. The judgement of our elected MPs has been repeatedly called into question and I would welcome a parliament of trained donkeys who went through the divisions as per public opinion than the current crop of misfits who seem to have never heard of the terms 'public interest', 'unintended conseqeunces', 'long-term impact', 'taxpayers' money' or why perhaps voters consider these terms important.
Two nonsenses that that been cropping up in this thread:
1) "Without the EU we wouldn't have (insert law here)"
Usually applied regarding human rights, working time directives, child labour, safety & warranty etc. So the idea is that if we hadn't entered the Common Market in 1973, children would be working in mines before and after school, we would have no human rights, people would be forced to work 60-70 hour weeks and our kettle from Currys would explode after 4 uses. I think the benefits of these pieces of legislation are perhaps more necessary for the members of the former Eastern bloc states than they are for countries like the UK and France, where they were previously suffering from lack of human rights, employment legislation and consumer protection.
2) "Our politicians should lead, not be led by public opinion."
This may have been true some time ago when we expected our best and brightest to help make up those being put forward for election. For the last few decades or so, this has not been the case. The best and brightest know their skills are much more valuable outside of the arena of politics and they know they will be far better rewarded in terms of renumeration, job satisfaction and lifestyle.
What you now get in a politician is a mickey mouse degree from the University of Name-Drop who would struggle to get a job interview anywhere outside a fast food outlet. The only reason why politicians get selected for seats or get on the inside track to power within their parties is thanks to connections and networking rather than talent and ability. There's a reason why a growing number of Labour candidates share a surname with a sitting or previous Labour politician. The otherwise unimpressive Miliband brothers would have gotten nowhere near the leadership if their dad wasn't a major player in British socialism and got them in the inner cabal of the Labour party when they were young. The Tories are not much better with the number of hereditary titles and lands some of their MPs can make a claim to.
MPs are no longer independent, bright individuals who can be trusted to act on the behalf of their constituents based on his own judgement and not on how popular policies are. The judgement of our elected MPs has been repeatedly called into question and I would welcome a parliament of trained donkeys who went through the divisions as per public opinion than the current crop of misfits who seem to have never heard of the terms 'public interest', 'unintended conseqeunces', 'long-term impact', 'taxpayers' money' or why perhaps voters consider these terms important.
What's wrong with going to public school? I didn't but I work bloody hard to make sure my son does.
More important to me is an MP actually having a real working job prior to going into politics.
I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with it. I was saying that the image he is portraying is a false one that certain members of the public are lapping up.
To say that Farage is any more in touch with the working class man than Cameron et al. is just wrong.
To suggest that by leaving the E.U. we would be free from E.U. trading directives is nonsense. That is I assume we would wish to continue trading within the E.U. after leaving. The Norwegians complain that they pay to trade within the E.U. having to comply with E.U. regulation without any input into the formulation of such directives. When a referendum comes as I’m sure it will. The majority of sensible political voices will back remaining in the E.U.
Comments
The seaside is pushing it too far though!
It's okay to use the term "British values" when chatting in the pub with your likeminded mates, they know exactly what you mean; when a complete stranger writes it as a goal on his manifesto I think that anyone sensible would want a bit more flesh on the bones before committing to voting for them.
Can I ask where you lived in order to come to the following conclusion please?
"Those who need a definition of British values probably lean towards the European concept of every aspect of daily life needing to conform to codified written regulations rather than following a principle."
If you paid £40 for a kettle you can afford to fund the Museum single-handed :-)
It matters in the sense that anti-EU fanatics cite "Brussels bureaucracy, meddling with our laws and imposing stupid ones on us" as their key argument for getting out, once the immigration one has fallen apart, and then when the truth is shown to be nowhere near as black and white as the Daily Mail told them, they turn round and say, "oh well its not about directives". Isn't that part of the "Sovereignty" argument, a word Farage is very fond of? If not, what is "sovereignty" about, then?
How true this is. I was astonished to hear this morning that over 55's are going to be allowed to dip into their pension fund to spend as they wish. What a bonanza for Bookies, Holiday companies, Pubs etc, but what a disaster when 5 to 10 years later they are skint and looking for help. Being at this end of my life is becoming a gift.
I have no problem with the fact that he - or anyone else - went to a public school. But you can't criticise some for doing so and not all of them!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/jun/05/nigel-farage-ukip-interview
Labour put a stop to that element of social mobility like so much more.
The fact that my source,THE GUARDIAN not renowned for its love of public schools, mentions free scholarships does suggest that he probably did get one although it is not certain. Hence my comment "which I BELIEVE is what he did."
I've seen it argued elsewhere that one of the problems with the EU is that it is way too slow and bureaucratic to be effective. But the reason is that you have a huge amount of input from the member states each trying to tailor a directive to suit the needs of it citizens, businesses and political make up. There are a numerous technical committees, working groups, etc that are set up to try to reach the best possible compromise for the EU market as a whole, which is why sometimes it looks like “we’ve lost” over an issue.
There are others when “we win”.
Hard to take someone seriously when their evidence is that far wide of the mark, even if his overall point is a valid one...
Your last sentence appears to be false by the way Len, unless there has been a change of government in the last 48 hours since this web page was updated?
http://www.gettherightschool.co.uk/scholarshipsforprivateindependentschools.html
I think we've established British values can't be defined, only described in very many different ways, it's a personal concept. Putting a perverse interpretation on what I said and refuting it doesn't advance the debate very far.
Probably making the point a bit clumsily, shouldn't have been personal, but I'm just taking a swipe at the Roman concept of law that predominant in Europe that codifies what you can and can't do. English law is based on principles that are interpreted and re-interpreted over time. The EU is driving us towards the European codified rule of law which is alien to our traditional English "live and let live" mentality and the principles of equity and upholding the rights of individuals. In fact whatever we think British values mean, I doubt it is unconnected to an attachment to those principles of our legal system.
Also, if you are going to vote for someone based on whether they did/did not go to private school, you are a fool.
More important to me is an MP actually having a real working job prior to going into politics.
Back in the day the there was local government funding support for free scholarships to independent schools. It is that which Labour put a stop to.
Your link refers to scholarships offered by the schools themselves.
I cannot make myself any clearer in what I mean, if you choose to deliberately pretend to misunderstand that so that you don't have to answer my point, there's not a lot more I can add.
That you can lump together cultures as diverse at Sweden, Romania and Portugal as having the "Roman concept of law" I find rather odd too.
1) "Without the EU we wouldn't have (insert law here)"
Usually applied regarding human rights, working time directives, child labour, safety & warranty etc. So the idea is that if we hadn't entered the Common Market in 1973, children would be working in mines before and after school, we would have no human rights, people would be forced to work 60-70 hour weeks and our kettle from Currys would explode after 4 uses. I think the benefits of these pieces of legislation are perhaps more necessary for the members of the former Eastern bloc states than they are for countries like the UK and France, where they were previously suffering from lack of human rights, employment legislation and consumer protection.
2) "Our politicians should lead, not be led by public opinion."
This may have been true some time ago when we expected our best and brightest to help make up those being put forward for election. For the last few decades or so, this has not been the case. The best and brightest know their skills are much more valuable outside of the arena of politics and they know they will be far better rewarded in terms of renumeration, job satisfaction and lifestyle.
What you now get in a politician is a mickey mouse degree from the University of Name-Drop who would struggle to get a job interview anywhere outside a fast food outlet. The only reason why politicians get selected for seats or get on the inside track to power within their parties is thanks to connections and networking rather than talent and ability. There's a reason why a growing number of Labour candidates share a surname with a sitting or previous Labour politician. The otherwise unimpressive Miliband brothers would have gotten nowhere near the leadership if their dad wasn't a major player in British socialism and got them in the inner cabal of the Labour party when they were young. The Tories are not much better with the number of hereditary titles and lands some of their MPs can make a claim to.
MPs are no longer independent, bright individuals who can be trusted to act on the behalf of their constituents based on his own judgement and not on how popular policies are. The judgement of our elected MPs has been repeatedly called into question and I would welcome a parliament of trained donkeys who went through the divisions as per public opinion than the current crop of misfits who seem to have never heard of the terms 'public interest', 'unintended conseqeunces', 'long-term impact', 'taxpayers' money' or why perhaps voters consider these terms important.
To say that Farage is any more in touch with the working class man than Cameron et al. is just wrong.
When a referendum comes as I’m sure it will. The majority of sensible political voices will back remaining in the E.U.