Thread: UKIP gains = Island mentality ? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025377
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I was wondering if the dramatic by-election success of the UK Independence Party is a sign of Britain's Island mentality starting to engage in the face of a growing feeling that the world is becoming unstable , even though that feeling may not be grounded in fact.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Possibly. My feelings are that their success is due to:
1. Disillusionment with the main parties - i.e. a "protest vote". The Liberals used to get that boost but now they are part of the Establishment and so are regarded as equally culpable.
2. Insecurity and fear felt by people due to the rapid changes caused by inward migration - "things around here aren't the same as they used to be".
3. Xenophobia which often seems to arise when there is an economic downturn - "they're taking our jobs".
4. A lack of identification with mainland Europe - the folks "over there on the Continent" are definitely seen as "them" rather than "us".
5. UKIP successfully keying into a section of the electorate (i.e. lower middle-class, white collar, conservative with a small "c") which does not relate well to the other parties - the British class-system rearing its ugly head!
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
I think their success is due to the fact that many people have a basic grasp of geography and realise that a country with a territory of less than 100,000 square miles has to have some control over its borders. In other words, they are living in the real world, unlike many on the Left.
But this quite obvious fact won't put a stop to the pernicious accusations of racism, xenophobia etc. After all, it's not as if every other country in the world flings open its doors to anyone who wants to waltz in! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Chas of the Dicker (# 12769) on
:
"anyone who wants to waltz in..."
and has done since the ice sheets retreated.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Well, if you are going to make an argument based on the distant past, then I suppose we should pray for a repeat of the black death and a few more wars, to keep numbers down.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But this quite obvious fact won't put a stop to the pernicious accusations of racism, xenophobia etc. After all, it's not as if every other country in the world flings open its doors to anyone who wants to waltz in!
Have some facts with your frothing. 11 countries in the EU (including Spain, Germany and Ireland) have a higher percentage immigrant population than the UK. That leaves 16 with fewer than the UK, and puts us firmly in the middle of the table.
I won't call you racist or xenophobic, but your views are based on ignorance and lazy assumptions.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
AFAICT the UKIP vote is a mixture of the traditional protest vote (ie, anything against the government) and ex-Conservative voters who dislike the dilution of Conservative policies by their LibDem coalition partners. Moreover, a fair number of successful UKIP councillors are former Conservatives.
When analysing local elections it's worth noting that the turn out is usually about 30%, and I don't think these were any different.
eta: BNP now down to zero! Their ineffectiveness has been exposed. In a few years we'll be saying the same about today's big new thing.
[ 03. May 2013, 21:57: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
It is a protest vote for a more radical party and one that has a clear definition, not to mention a reasonably charismatic leader. None of the other main parties have either of these. I mean Nigel Farage is an arse, but he is also a character.
It is also partly the BBC making a big thing of the UKIP vote. Bear in mind that UKIP not has 50 council seats, and has had pretty well wall-to-wall coverage today. The Greens - the party I am a member of - had got nearly 200 seats, and made significant gains, and yet has hardly had a mention.
As has been pointed out to me, most of the UKIP representatives will not get elected a second time, because they have been elected purely on the basis of a single policy. Now they will have to work as a councilor, which many of them will struggle to do.
I think it is more to do with fadism than any real change in mentality.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
It would have to be a cold day in hell before I ever voted UKIP. However, I think that for some people they reflect the concerns that a European Union which has a united fiscal policy must also have political unity as they are two sides of the same coin. Personally, I have deep concerns about this as it dilutes the democratic process over too wide an area. Of course countries need to work together to help solve certain problems like environmental issues, but these need to involve countries far beyond the EU to have any impact.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
How have Conservative policies been diluted in any way? Conservative policy is thoroughly Conservative in ideology.
Also as EE has so ably demonstrated, large swathes of the public are just plain ignorant on how immigration works. Our immigration policy is in line with most of Europe's and there are plenty of countries with bigger immigration rates than ours. Europe and immigration are both good for our economy.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
Someone on Twitter pointed out UKIP has equivalents in most of Europe. What I want to know is why UKIP gets so much more coverage tgsn the Greens, who have an MP, a council and more councillors, though less spectacular gains today.
Carys
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I've had a brief look at parts of the policies. Buried in the part about support for small businesses is a plan to remove legislation for equality and against discrimination. And I think I saw comments about maternity leave which were not supportive.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
How have Conservative policies been diluted in any way? Conservative policy is thoroughly Conservative in ideology.
Believe it or not a lot of Conservative backbenchers plus a lot of Conservatives outside don't think the government is anything like Conservative enough. They hate the LibDems far more than disappointed LibDem voters do, although disappointed LibDem voters don't know that.
quote:
Also as EE has so ably demonstrated, large swathes of the public are just plain ignorant on how immigration works. Our immigration policy is in line with most of Europe's and there are plenty of countries with bigger immigration rates than ours. Europe and immigration are both good for our economy.
All of which I agree with, but it is, to all intents and purposes, a Dead Horse. Those concerned usually want to externalise any failings within Britain, so pinning the blame on Europe and immigration is very convenient.
Posted by Chas of the Dicker (# 12769) on
:
Well, if you are going to make an argument based on the distant past, then I suppose we should pray for a repeat of the black death and a few more wars, to keep numbers down.
My (flippant) argument was based not simply on the remote past but suggesting that immigration has played a crucial and often positive role in the life of these islands ever since the Iberians repopulated the islands as the ice sheet withdrew through each period of history until the present. I don;t really go along with the saying " The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn anything from history".javascript:void(0)
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
Correction, Greens had more councillors before today, but Garage got more coverage and they had massive gains.
Carys
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Have some facts with your frothing. 11 countries in the EU (including Spain, Germany and Ireland) have a higher percentage immigrant population than the UK. That leaves 16 with fewer than the UK, and puts us firmly in the middle of the table.
Does 'immigrant population' = 'level of immigration'? Germany, for instance, has a large Turkish immigrant population but I don't know whether there has been a recent influx of Turks into Germany. The perception in the UK is that there has been a recent influx of immigrants.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is also partly the BBC making a big thing of the UKIP vote. Bear in mind that UKIP not has 50 council seats, and has had pretty well wall-to-wall coverage today. The Greens - the party I am a member of - had got nearly 200 seats, and made significant gains, and yet has hardly had a mention.
This is presumably because in spite of those gains the Green Party hasn't had the same effect as UKIP? The Greens haven't come out of nowhere to take second place in many elections (e.g. in the South Shield by-election) and the surge in UK support has, arguably, split the centre-right vote and enabled Labour to win seats.
It seems to me that what UKIP has achieved is far more noteworthy than anything the Greens have achieved. Whether it remains noteworthy in a year, or five years time, is a different matter.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Europe and immigration are both good for our economy.
Would you accept that the main complaint about immigration is not the presence of immigrants per se, but the rate of immigration? Would you agree that it's possible for the rate of immigration ever to be too high?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Europe and immigration are both good for our economy.
Would you accept that the main complaint about immigration is not the presence of immigrants per se, but the rate of immigration? Would you agree that it's possible for the rate of immigration ever to be too high?
Would you agree that interest rates are too high? That the unemployment rate is too high? That rents are too high? That the cuts to benefits penalise the poor at the expense of those who are better-off? That the rate at which jobs are offshored is too high? That too many of our soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan? That we are spending too much on prestige projects, like HS2, Trident replacent and the bomb magnets (which won't even carry planes for years)?
Whatever the rate of immigration, it cannot be considered alone. What does UKIP say about these issues?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Would you agree that interest rates are too high? That the unemployment rate is too high? That rents are too high? That the cuts to benefits penalise the poor at the expense of those who are better-off? That the rate at which jobs are offshored is too high? That too many of our soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan? That we are spending too much on prestige projects, like HS2, Trident replacent and the bomb magnets (which won't even carry planes for years)?
Whatever the rate of immigration, it cannot be considered alone. What does UKIP say about these issues?
I don't know what UKIP says about these issues (its policies are notoriously contradictory and incomplete). And even if the rate of immigration cannot be considered alone, it doesn't mean that it can't be considered at all. It's an issue that a lot of people think is important and I'm interested to know whether some think it's even capable of being of problem (hence my original question).
(But to answer your questions: no, yes, yes, no, yes, yes, no.)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I feel that this echoes a lot of what has been happening in Holland for the last 13 years (including the low press coverage of the Greens). Luckily, the PVV is losing its mediatic and politic influence (although not yet its voters).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think their success is due to the fact that many people have a basic grasp of geography and realise that a country with a territory of less than 100,000 square miles has to have some control over its borders.
Having stood in a queue at Heathrow a couple of times, I can assure you you do have some control over your borders. Whether the content of the controls is to your personal liking is a different question, but it's rather silly to suggest that there are no rules at all.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Someone on Twitter pointed out UKIP has equivalents in most of Europe. What I want to know is why UKIP gets so much more coverage tgsn the Greens, who have an MP, a council and more councillors, though less spectacular gains today.
Carys
We have an equivalent over here in Finland. They're the third biggest party in parliament and according to latest opinion polls are pushing close to second. Given the economic situation people have quite legitimate concerns and the EU is basket case. I'll probably be voting for them next election.
[ 04. May 2013, 02:11: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
I'm not a racist but...
The most frequent vox pop quote on the news. Says it all really.
Maybe the rest of Europe is better at integration; more open and inclusive.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
I'm not a racist but...
The most frequent vox pop quote on the news. Says it all really.
Maybe the rest of Europe is better at integration; more open and inclusive.
The rest of Europe is probably more used to different cultures sitting next to each other.
My first trip to the central part of Europe was in 2009. On at least two occasions I was struck by the multicultural history of the places I was visiting. The first was in Prague - a city that for a large part of its history was simultaneously German and Czech. The second was in Switzerland, as I ate at an Italian restaurant run by Italian-Swiss in German-speaking Zurich and listened to people switching between at least 3 languages constantly.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is also partly the BBC making a big thing of the UKIP vote. Bear in mind that UKIP not has 50 council seats, and has had pretty well wall-to-wall coverage today. The Greens - the party I am a member of - had got nearly 200 seats, and made significant gains, and yet has hardly had a mention.
This is presumably because in spite of those gains the Green Party hasn't had the same effect as UKIP? The Greens haven't come out of nowhere to take second place in many elections (e.g. in the South Shield by-election) and the surge in UK support has, arguably, split the centre-right vote and enabled Labour to win seats.
It seems to me that what UKIP has achieved is far more noteworthy than anything the Greens have achieved. Whether it remains noteworthy in a year, or five years time, is a different matter.
I suppose it depends what you are looking for. If you want to focus on a protest vote, then yes, but if you want to serious look at changes in the political landscape, the long-term future of a new political perspective, then the Greens are providing this.
Yes it is not "exciting" or "dramatic", but it is more significant in the long term.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
[I] f you want to serious look at changes in the political landscape, the long-term future of a new political perspective, then the Greens are providing this.
Yes it is not "exciting" or "dramatic", but it is more significant in the long term.
On a night when thousands of council seats were up for grabs, the Greens gained five and lost their place as the fourth-largest party in terms of number of councillors. Do you think you might be over-egging the pudding slightly?
(That said, the election coverage I watched yesterday afternoon did contain a reasonable-length interview with Natalie Bennett.)
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
The difference between the coverage of UKIP and the Greens might just be explained by the fact that the former got 23% on the national popular vote, 26% of the vote in those districts where they stood and seven times as many councillors elected as the Greens. Whatever one thinks of their policies, their personnel or the reasons for their trajectory, there doesn't seem to be any mystery about why they are the story and the Greens are not.
The number that struck me so very clearly was that with UKIP getting 6 out 7 of their voters from the Tories, and the combined Tory/UKIP share of the popular vote being 48%, there emergence is a disaster for the electoral prospects of centre right politics. Whilst the left and centre left majority around here might delight in that, it seems to me extremely dangerous that it is now highly likely that a combination of the gerrymandered constituency sizes and a split on the centre right could allow am almost permanent sizeable Labour majority with less than a third of the popular vote.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It's almost a mirror image of the SDP effect on Labour prospects. And in the other direction, Militant Tendency.
I think the UKIP vote is a response to compromise (coalition politics) and complexity (all the "black and whites" becoming "grey"). The pace of social, economic and political change produces unease. "We need to 'get back' to when things were 'clearer', less confusing".
UKIP policies won't work of course as a package, but it's hard to put together a populist argument about that. Those who try are seen to be supporting the complex view of the world which is one of the spurs producing the revolt.
David Cameron's stereotyping of UKIP has done a lot of harm to him and to the Conservatives, but when the alternative is more detailed attack on incoherent policies you can see the temptation to back off that in favour of the straightforward characterisation.
The sound quality on this youtube link (Neil Kinnock's famous diatribe against Militant Tendency) is poor, but at least it shows that it is possible to combine passion with attack on incoherent policies. It didn't get Kinnock into Downing Street but it was one of the spurs towards modernising Labour party policies and isolating more extremist tendencies.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The number that struck me so very clearly was that with UKIP getting 6 out 7 of their voters from the Tories, and the combined Tory/UKIP share of the popular vote being 48%, there emergence is a disaster for the electoral prospects of centre right politics.
UKIP certainly did really well in these elections but I wonder whether they'll keep anything like this vote percentage at the general election. What I suspect is that UKIP hoovered up the 'protest vote' of people who wanted to express their dissatisfaction with the Government, and many of these voters will (perhaps grudgingly) return to the Conservatives or Lib Dems come general election day.
Flicking through the results in my county, Hampshire, many of them were very close between UKIP and the Conservatives. I suspect a bit of 'Vote UKIP, get Miliband' electioneering will encourage plenty of the UKIP voters this time round to return to the blue team in the general election.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I think it might be a bubble which might burst. Also interesting that under PR, they would get about 150 MPs, with this showing.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
What I suspect is that UKIP hoovered up the 'protest vote' of people who wanted to express their dissatisfaction with the Government.
There is one division near here where UKIP did not put up a candidate. When the votes were counted it was discovered that there were no less than 332 spoiled papers - presumably people who wished to show their dissatisfaction with the status quo. Admittedly this was under 10% of the total ballot papers cast - but it also shows that a lot of folk felt strongly enough to bother "voting" at all.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
EE. If one is going to present thin end of the fascist views, one need Farage's charm. You don't have that (is that ad hominem?). And neither does he when push comes to shove. He managed to make my blood run cold for the first time yesterday on the Today programme, after his smoker's voice warmth evaporated. Whereas your views 'make me' angry immediately. In my repudiation of my own former ones that make Farage look like a multiculturalist.
[ 04. May 2013, 09:44: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
I wonder whether this might motivate the Conservatives to push through reforms to the voting system to introduce preferential ballots, something they did every effort to spoil when the Liberal Democrats wanted it.
It's not proportional representation, but I can't see the British people wanting to give up the benefits of local representation so you may as well go for a better way of doing an election.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
It's not proportional representation, but I can't see the British people wanting to give up the benefits of local representation so you may as well go for a better way of doing an election.
We already have one everywhere in the UK except England - a mixed system of FPP and regional lists.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The rest of Europe is probably more used to different cultures sitting next to each other.
My first trip to the central part of Europe was in 2009. On at least two occasions I was struck by the multicultural history of the places I was visiting. The first was in Prague - a city that for a large part of its history was simultaneously German and Czech. The second was in Switzerland, as I ate at an Italian restaurant run by Italian-Swiss in German-speaking Zurich and listened to people switching between at least 3 languages constantly.
TBH I'm not really convinced the rest of the EU is significantly less insular than the UK. (Well, except in the literal sense, obviously ...)
On the specific issue of immigration, one of the major sticking points is that the UK was one of very few countries to open borders without reservations to the ten new member-states in 2004. In that respect, the British were 'better Europeans' than pretty much everywhere else.
Likewise, it's not as though Continental Europe is short of parties to the right of UKIP. Think of the Front National in France, or Geert Wilders in Holland, or Jobbik in Hungary, or the Freedom Party in Austria (which entered a governing coalition in 1999), or Berlusconi with his wonderfully inclusive approach to Gypsies, or Jan Slota in Slovakia who, while part of a governing coalition, wanted to send tanks into Budapest ...
Prague may have a multi-cultural heritage, but, like neighbouring Slovakia, the country also shows widespread and systematic discrimination against Gypsies, including de facto segregated schooling.
[ 04. May 2013, 10:35: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
orfeo wrote: quote:
The rest of Europe is probably more used to different cultures sitting next to each other.
My first trip to the central part of Europe was in 2009. On at least two occasions I was struck by the multicultural history of the places I was visiting. The first was in Prague - a city that for a large part of its history was simultaneously German and Czech. The second was in Switzerland, as I ate at an Italian restaurant run by Italian-Swiss in German-speaking Zurich and listened to people switching between at least 3 languages constantly.
What you say about Prague is historically correct up until the beginning of the 20th century. Many Germans had for years settled in Northern Bohemia. But they never integrated significantly, and formed the excuse for Hitler's "lebensraum" annexation, a racist doctrine that the master race must naturally expand and overcome inferior races. Post-WW2, all ethnic Germans who had not fought with the Czechs were immediately expelled. If it happened today we would say they were ethnically cleansed.
In a sense you have highlighted two types of multiculturalism, one of which has worked, and the other hasn't. Clearly just speaking of multiculturalism isn't enough - it is neither guaranteed to lead to harmony, nor to cause disharmony. Those things happen - when they happen - because people want them to happen.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the UKIP vote is a response to compromise (coalition politics) and complexity (all the "black and whites" becoming "grey"). The pace of social, economic and political change produces unease. "We need to 'get back' to when things were 'clearer', less confusing".
I agree very much with this view . Such feelings might be ungrounded or irrational but it doesn't make them any less real . quote:
David Cameron's stereotyping of UKIP has done a lot of harm to him and to the Conservatives .
His climb down on calling UKIP supporters "racist" was embarrassing and made him and his Party look weak .
I am a bit of a 'pop-corn muncher' where these matters are concerned , someone who is inclined to join a revolution once it's begun . As has been said above this particular one is likely to last until the next GE when we frightened Brits traditionally revert to type.
If, as has been suggested, the majority of us dumb-arse Alf garnet types do not understand the benefits of mass immigration then surely it's high time we were enlightened .
For the more our leaders stumble to find a word which better describes those with anxieties over immigration, (other than 'racist'), the more they will fan the flames of revolt IMHO.
(Edited to clear what was B62 and what was you)
[ 04. May 2013, 11:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
On the other hand UKIP may be to the UK what the SNP under Alex Salmond is to Scotland. Fringe loonies to begin with...then a change...then mainstream...then the largest party.
Interesting times - and even more interesting and amusing the transparent falling-over-themselves-to-be-nice-to UKIP by MPs from the major parties.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC etc...
EE. If one is going to present thin end of the fascist views, one need Farage's charm. You don't have that (is that ad hominem?). And neither does he when push comes to shove. He managed to make my blood run cold for the first time yesterday on the Today programme, after his smoker's voice warmth evaporated. Whereas your views 'make me' angry immediately. In my repudiation of my own former ones that make Farage look like a multiculturalist.
Then be angry.
But I have said nothing fascist at all, and I challenge you to show me one thing I wrote which is even remotely 'fascist'. If you think that population density is a non-issue, then fine. I, myself, will stick to something called 'reality'.
And I don't have Farage's charm?
Well I'm relieved that my northern roots count for something. Calling bullshit 'bullshit' is my general approach. I make no apology.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Europe and immigration are both good for our economy.
Would you accept that the main complaint about immigration is not the presence of immigrants per se, but the rate of immigration? Would you agree that it's possible for the rate of immigration ever to be too high?
The vast majority of those who complain about immigration DO complain about the presence of immigrants far more than the rate of immigration. Naturally only non-English speakers and mostly non-white immigrants get complained about! As for whether it's possible for the rate of immigration to ever be too high, I honestly don't know since that would depend on outside factors such as the economies of the home countries of immigrants. Suffice to say that I don't think Britain has ever got anywhere near that level.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC etc...
EE. If one is going to present thin end of the fascist views, one need Farage's charm. You don't have that (is that ad hominem?). And neither does he when push comes to shove. He managed to make my blood run cold for the first time yesterday on the Today programme, after his smoker's voice warmth evaporated. Whereas your views 'make me' angry immediately. In my repudiation of my own former ones that make Farage look like a multiculturalist.
Then be angry.
But I have said nothing fascist at all, and I challenge you to show me one thing I wrote which is even remotely 'fascist'. If you think that population density is a non-issue, then fine. I, myself, will stick to something called 'reality'.
And I don't have Farage's charm?
Well I'm relieved that my northern roots count for something. Calling bullshit 'bullshit' is my general approach. I make no apology.
Can't speak for Martin PC, but I think that population density is an issue. I just think that what proportion of that population consists of immigrants is a non-issue. Lack of affordable housing spread across the country is a far bigger issue for population density.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
It's not proportional representation, but I can't see the British people wanting to give up the benefits of local representation so you may as well go for a better way of doing an election.
We already have one everywhere in the UK except England - a mixed system of FPP and regional lists.
For the three provincial-level assemblies yes, but not for the national-level Parliament. English voters suffer from a double lack of representation there, not having any provincial or regional assemblies at all, let alone one with a good electoral system.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
On the other hand UKIP may be to the UK what the SNP under Alex Salmond is to Scotland. Fringe loonies to begin with...then a change...then mainstream...then the largest party.
Except the UKIP is much more of the establishment than the SNP ever was.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
...so an added advantage, or not?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
His climb down on calling UKIP supporters "racist" was embarrassing and made him and his Party look weak .
The problem for the Conservatives is that they've been complaining about immigration as a dog whistle for racists since the Empire broke up. So when people start voting for openly racist parties there's not a lot the Conservatives can consistently say to oppose it.
Labour have been going along with the Conservative/tabloid account, so it's a problem for them too, if a lesser one.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Would you agree that interest rates are too high? That the unemployment rate is too high? That rents are too high? That the cuts to benefits penalise the poor at the expense of those who are better-off? That the rate at which jobs are offshored is too high? That too many of our soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan? That we are spending too much on prestige projects, like HS2, Trident replacent and the bomb magnets (which won't even carry planes for years)?
Whatever the rate of immigration, it cannot be considered alone. What does UKIP say about these issues?
The question is, does one punch up or punch down.
Regarding the benefits of migration, well, in terms of finances (if that floats your boat) it's well well established that migrants bring higher tax revenues for the Inland Revenue.
Not that little things like facts should get in the way of prejudice.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
...so an added advantage, or not?
Or not. It has establishment policies and has captured the votes of the middle aged (mostly male) disgruntled petit-bourguesie who are in all probability voting against their own interests.
The SNPs appeal is much wider, and they are fundamentally socially democratic.
UKIP is in the vein of the right wing parties in northern europe, the SNP is in the vein of the more established parties in northern europe.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Or not. It has establishment policies and has captured the votes of the middle aged (mostly male) disgruntled petit-bourguesie who are in all probability voting against their own interests.
Indeed. It's irrational, based on, well, I don't know. People will start squealing if I say things like "xenophobia". Certainly, though, there is a racist undercurrent to some of their members. I mean, look up UKIP members who were in the EDL. Farage told his MEPs who oppose the BNP not receiving EU money.
In any case, attributing economic problems (or part of them) to people with relatively less power is an old game. We have the likes of Paul Rose, who believe that "gay folk (are) being used by forces of evil to upset UKIP progress", or Tom Bursnell, who believes that rich people should receive more votes, or John Sullivan who believes that regular exercise in schools "can prevent homosexuality", or the UKIP policy on Welfare to Work which includes the words "a parasitic underclass of scroungers".
Some on the left say talk of "genuine concerns of people" and the need to listen to them. When concerns are focussed on hitting down, on welfare recipients, on immigrants or on gays, and not at all on hitting up, then we know something dodgy is afoot.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Regarding the benefits of migration, well, in terms of finances (if that floats your boat) it's well well established that migrants bring higher tax revenues for the Inland Revenue.
Thanks for that link Rosa , I was the one querying the economic benefit of allowing so many migrants into Britain.
Interesting though to browse just a few of the 1500 comments below the article , and not difficult to see where the impetus for the UKIP success is coming from. For as you say many of us don't allow facts to get in the way of prejudice .
So therefore we have to ask how such prejudice has been allowed to develop ? Of course a triple-dip recession is bound to get fingers pointing at johnny foreigner , however that alone does not explain current anxieties .
This thing's been building for a while, and when people start voting en masse for fringe Parties you know they are experiencing a feeling of powerlessness .
If you get enough people, who have no real desire to break away from the EU, considering precisely that because they see it as the only way to control immigration ? Well, without wanting to sound melodramatic , I see danger lying ahead.
Posted by Chas of the Dicker (# 12769) on
:
There is danger, not from 'johnny foreigner' (a phrase how evocative of imperial prejudice) but from the loss of trust in the national institutions. The banks are 'greed out of control', the worlds of entertainment and the church 'have allowed paedophiles to flourish', parliamentarians have had their 'shouts in the expenses trough' (and now the Deputy Speaker has been arrested after allegations of rape). The fact that in each case there are more good and caring people than miscreants is not obvious from the publicity - but the press itself can have no halo after Leveson.
Institutions can be corrupted, but a wide ranging failure of trust can be worrying.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Well, without wanting to sound melodramatic , I see danger lying ahead.
For British nationals like me living abroad within the EU, I also see danger ahead.
Saying that, I remember the Referendum Party. They were also a single-issue party. They split the right-wing vote and contributed to Labour winning. They had a charismatic leader.
[ 04. May 2013, 22:24: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chas of the Dicker:
The fact that in each case there are more good and caring people than miscreants is not obvious from the publicity - but the press itself can have no halo after Leveson.
The problem is that phrasing it this way makes it sound like a problem of perception - the real issue is that all those issues you mention were manifested at the top of each organisation.
The Curia were involved in the cover up. The front bench were involved in the expenses scandal. The NI management were severely economical with the actuality.
.. and tbh the investment banking industry (an industry much smaller than you might at first assume) believes that they weren't at fault, that they had to be bailed out, that this was part of free enterprise, and that they remain masters of the universe. Oh, and they are supported by a number of useful idiots, some of which are on the evangelical wing of the CofE.
Your statements assume a few bad apples, in reality we had a systemtic failure of the morality of our institutions - where even the good aided the cover ups in some way.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
orfeo wrote: quote:
The rest of Europe is probably more used to different cultures sitting next to each other.
My first trip to the central part of Europe was in 2009. On at least two occasions I was struck by the multicultural history of the places I was visiting. The first was in Prague - a city that for a large part of its history was simultaneously German and Czech. The second was in Switzerland, as I ate at an Italian restaurant run by Italian-Swiss in German-speaking Zurich and listened to people switching between at least 3 languages constantly.
What you say about Prague is historically correct up until the beginning of the 20th century. Many Germans had for years settled in Northern Bohemia. But they never integrated significantly, and formed the excuse for Hitler's "lebensraum" annexation, a racist doctrine that the master race must naturally expand and overcome inferior races. Post-WW2, all ethnic Germans who had not fought with the Czechs were immediately expelled. If it happened today we would say they were ethnically cleansed.
In a sense you have highlighted two types of multiculturalism, one of which has worked, and the other hasn't. Clearly just speaking of multiculturalism isn't enough - it is neither guaranteed to lead to harmony, nor to cause disharmony. Those things happen - when they happen - because people want them to happen.
Yes, I'm well aware that the 20th century completely buggered everything up. Half of Europe is full of borders that were drawn to reward or punish winners or losers, followed by massive migrations of people out of areas that were previously mixed.
Cf Bosnia for another example within my living memory.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
[QUOTE] For British nationals like me living abroad within the EU, I also see danger ahead.
Let us hope that the voice of moderation, and a return to economic growth among the major trading Nations is able to suppress darker forces.
FWIW I meet some migrant ,(mainly Polish), workers even in these remote parts of SW England . Most are pleasant and hard-working .
What's getting the average middle Englander spooked is talk of a load more immigrants arriving from newly joined Eastern European member states.
Again fears can be imagined , however lack of jobs and opportunities for the indigenous populations are not.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
I totally agree.
The issue is of who to blame for less jobs, low wages and less housing. We've had a succession of governments now that take is as read that we need to limit migration in order to combat these things. That these governments themselves as well as certain firms cause these things are ignored.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Europe and immigration are both good for our economy.
Would you accept that the main complaint about immigration is not the presence of immigrants per se, but the rate of immigration? Would you agree that it's possible for the rate of immigration ever to be too high?
The vast majority of those who complain about immigration DO complain about the presence of immigrants far more than the rate of immigration. Naturally only non-English speakers and mostly non-white immigrants get complained about!
Isn't this partly to do with integration / cultural issues? Immigrants aren't a homogeneous group of people and some have integrated well into society and some remain very ghettoised.
quote:
As for whether it's possible for the rate of immigration to ever be too high, I honestly don't know since that would depend on outside factors such as the economies of the home countries of immigrants.
It's interesting that you list as the only outside factor the economy of the immigrants' home country. Do you think the economy of the host country or the thoughts of the population of the host country should ever be considered?
quote:
Suffice to say that I don't think Britain has ever got anywhere near that level.
During the recent boom, some say that over 75% of new jobs (others say closer to 99%) created in Britain went to immigrants. Does that suggest to you that immigration might have been too high?
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I just think that what proportion of that population consists of immigrants is a non-issue. Lack of affordable housing spread across the country is a far bigger issue for population density.
Would you accept that it has been a very real issue in places such as Peterborough, where considerable demand was placed on local services such as GP practices?
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
For British nationals like me living abroad within the EU, I also see danger ahead.
What sort of danger do you see ahead? If the UK were to leave the EU then I appreciate that there might be some uncertainty for someone in your position. (I say might, because we're at a very early stage yet and we don't really yet know how withdrawal might work in practice.) There were Britons living in Europe before 1973 and they would in the event of British withdrawal. Indeed I'm sure it'd be possible for Britain to negotiate some fairly decent residency rights for their nationals in the rump EU.
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
The issue is of who to blame for less jobs, low wages and less housing. We've had a succession of governments now that take is as read that we need to limit migration in order to combat these things. That these governments themselves as well as certain firms cause these things are ignored.
As I mentioned above, reports suggest that the vast majority of jobs created in Britain during the boom went to immigrant workers. If this is the case, surely it's natural to say that the blame for 'less jobs' should be pinned on governments that cannot control immigration? (I accept that there are other factors at play too, such as the possible relative uncompetitiveness of a British worker compared to an immigrant worker.)
_____________
Jade / Rosa / Others:
A more general question, if I may:
The general discussion here is about UKIP / racism / immigration. Do you think it's ever possible to be against immigration in some form (whether it's the rate, type, whatever) without being racist?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Surely more jobs going to immigrants suggests that British people are just less willing/less qualified? If immigrants are more capable of being hired then why wouldn't we want them here? With the example of overloaded GPs' surgeries, that happens even in areas without large immigrant populations, and surely the answer is to build more/bigger surgeries? The population is going to grow either way, it seems wise to be prepared for that. The same goes for housing. Question - in a hypothetical situation where there was little to no immigration but the birthrate exploded, would you put limits on how many children people have? That would cause the same effect.
I think it's perfectly possible to be against immigration without being racist, but I don't think it's possible to be against immigration without being xenophobic. Being against immigration is valuing the people in your country above others, which is imo is wrong. We're British because of an accident of birth, it's not because Britain is inherently better.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Anglican't wrote:
quote:
Do you think it's ever possible to be against immigration in some form (whether it's the rate, type, whatever) without being racist?
Yes. I'm not in favour of open borders, so, by definition, I think there has to be a set rate of immigration. And while I have no idea what that level should be, if I were to study the economics of it in-depth, I could probably come up with my own ideas.
So, algebraically, let X = the number of immigrants I think should be admitted each year. If the government were to propose X Plus 1 as the appropriate number, I guess I'd be against that.
I don't think that makes me racist, or if it does, it means that everyone who advocates an immigration policy other than open-borders is also racist. Since, if you oppose open-borders, you support limiting immigration to some degree or another.
However...
Like I say, I haven't studied the matter that much, and besides having a general sense that open-borders would be unworkable, I really don't feel myself qualified to pronounce on what the rates should be.
And I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people who support parties like the UKIP are similarly unqualified to discuss the economic impact of immigration. They just have a vague idea that there is too much immigration(though would probably be unable to tell you what the actual numbers are), and that it bad for the country(though would probably not even have the foggiest idea of how to go about proving the neccessary connections). It is one of those issues where armchair theorists hold inordinate sway over the discussion.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Discussing the possibility of UK withdrawal from the EU, Anglican'T used the phrase: 'the rump EU.'
This is comparable with the famous (if mythical) headline 'Fog in the Channel: Continent cut off.' The EU (and the UK) would both be poorer (probably economically but certainly in most other ways, if we were to pull out. But it would still leave several major economies and many smaller countries in the Union: hardly a 'rump'.
Responding to the thread title, I don't think 'island mentality' has much to do with it, at least if it refers to our literal geographic situation. Scotland, part of our island, has always been much more 'European' than England. Other large islands within the EU, such as Sicily or Corsica, might have nationalist elements but AFAIK still consider themselves European. During the middle ages and earlier British/ English culture was an integral part of European culture. It all started to break down with the Reformation and the posturing of Henry VIII, followed by the growth of English military power and eventually the British (aka English) Empire.
The difference between mainland Europe and the UK is our (unrequited) love affair with the USA. Because we speak the same language (sort of) many Brits imagine we are closer to America than Europe in all sorts of ways. Our politicians tend to look to America for solutions to our problems which are not their problems, hence even policies which work in the US don't work here. Bill Bryson famously said that the average Brit believes that the UK is geographically somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic instead of about 30km from mainland Europe (and linked by a high-speed rail line)
Having been in another part of the EU for the last month, including the recent election, I'm not familiar with UKIP policy on many issues. But I wouldn't be surprised if many members and supporters of UKIP, far from being in favour of British independence, welcomed an even greater dependence on our cousins across the pond.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people who support parties like the UKIP are similarly unqualified to discuss the economic impact of immigration.
Couldn't this be said of most voters about most issues? Ask a group of voters 'should we punitively tax the very rich?' and a lot of them will say 'yes' without them thinking about, say, the role of taxation in society or whether the Laffer Curve is a good model on which to base fiscal policy.
Rightly or wrongly, big decisions about how this country is run are made by people, or influenced by people, whose judgement we're supposed to trust but who on the whole have no expert opinion on anything. Historically, immigration appears to be an exception to this in that it seems to me that it has occurred regardless of the views of many who are affected by it. I'm not sure that's an altogether wise thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Discussing the possibility of UK withdrawal from the EU, Anglican't used the phrase: 'the rump EU.'
This is comparable with the famous (if mythical) headline 'Fog in the Channel: Continent cut off.' The EU (and the UK) would both be poorer (probably economically but certainly in most other ways, if we were to pull out. But it would still leave several major economies and many smaller countries in the Union: hardly a 'rump'.
My sentence was going to be something along the lines of:
"Indeed I'm sure it'd be possible for Britain to negotiate some fairly decent residency rights for their nationals living in the remainder of the EU if Britain were to leave it."
But I thought that was a bit wordy so just put 'rump EU' instead. Agreed it perhaps wasn't the best choice of words (I've always thought of 'rump' as 'rest of' as opposed to 'rest of which is significantly smaller and less important' which I think is the more accurate definition).
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The difference between mainland Europe and the UK is our (unrequited) love affair with the USA. Because we speak the same language (sort of) many Brits imagine we are closer to America than Europe in all sorts of ways.
Really? While some anti-EU people are passionately pro-US, I'm not sure you could say that's a universally-held view amongst Eurosceptics. Churchill spoke of three circles in British foreign policy. One might be able to draw even more these days.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
There was a referendum in 1975. That decided the thing. If there is another referendum, I feel inclined to campaign for a 'leave well alone' vote. I can't see any arguments in favour of re-opening the issue.
I also can't see why anyone should have voted for UKIP in a local election. No local authority has power to pull its area out of Europe or do anything about immigration. Those are both national matters.
This isn't just my view. I've heard other people say the same.
Indeed, the very fact that both Mr Farrage and his party have made a big issue of standing in local elections, and quite a significant proportion of those who voted at all, voted for them, reflects ill on the intelligence of both UKIP and those who voted for its candidates.
Much more serious, is the execrable turn out in local elections. The politicians complain that this is because people don't care. It doesn't seem to occur to them that people might not have voted because:-
a. Local government has so little power that they don't think voting for councillors affects anything;
or
b. They don't reckon owt to the product,
I voted, but I find it hard to disapprove of those of my neighbours who didn't.
I wouldn't advise any national politicians to take any notice of these results. Indeed, it will lower the respect with which I hold those that do.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There was a referendum in 1975. That decided the thing. If there is another referendum, I feel inclined to campaign for a 'leave well alone' vote. I can't see any arguments in favour of re-opening the issue.
Would you agree that the EEC of 1975 is, after the Single European Act and the Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Lisbon treaties, etc., and the accession of so many new member states, a much different beast to the European Union of 2013?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Would you agree that the EEC of 1975 is, after the Single European Act and the Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Lisbon treaties, etc., and the accession of so many new member states, a much different beast to the European Union of 2013?
Not really, no. And the reasons for belonging to it are the same now as they were then.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Would you agree that the EEC of 1975 is, after the Single European Act and the Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Lisbon treaties, etc., and the accession of so many new member states, a much different beast to the European Union of 2013?
Not really, no.
Ah well, that explains it.
quote:
And the reasons for belonging to it are the same now as they were then.
My father, and other people of his generation who I've spoken to about this, complain that they thought they'd voted for a free trade agreement ("we thought we'd get some cheap French wine") rather than a full scale political project. Did you see it differently back then?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
... Did you see it differently back then?
Yes.
The EU's not perfect, but it's 68 years this month since VE day. The area within the EU's boundaries has almost certainly known the longest period of peace since the barbarians crossed the Rhine on 31st December 406.
Whether we like it or not, we are a large island 20 miles off France. Our only land boundary is with another EU state which has expressed no interest in leaving. We trade with our neighbours. We have to keep in with them and work with them.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I used to know a UKIP councillor. I won't identify him because I have no idea who is will this, but he cheerfully identified himself as a racist, and had a long, articulate, explanation as to why. He didn't see why he should hide the fact; I assume that he didn't hide it from the rest of his party and it didn't bother them.
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
On the other hand UKIP may be to the UK what the SNP under Alex Salmond is to Scotland. Fringe loonies to begin with...then a change...then mainstream...then the largest party.
I think this is an interesting point. Since 1945, an era of precipitous decline of party membership (Tory membership has declined from 2.9 mil in 1950 to 200,000 now) the SNP is the only party capable of government to emerge. Way back when, they were also a collection of fringe loons like UKIP now. FWIW they were also not originally social democrats, but one-nation Tories, the nation being Scotland.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surely more jobs going to immigrants suggests that British people are just less willing/less qualified?
Speaking as a citizen of a country somewhat less rich than Britain, my comment is this. Britain is a rich country. My salary would possibly be a third or a half higher if I did the same job in the UK. A hefty amount of our top grads (educated in a system generally considered better than Britain's) in various disciplines move to the UK (along with other places) for wages and because there is more opportunity for advancement in various ways.
So, it is probably true that immigrants take British jobs: the locals are competing with the cream of the crop from elsewhere and are bound to lose out to an extent. On the other hand, there is no question that British industry benefits from these superior-quality immigrants.
Britain is one of a group of countries that skims off the best workers from around the world. Anyone who thinks that's a bad thing should consider what it's like to be outside that group.
Posted by Chas of the Dicker (# 12769) on
:
To chris stiles, if I appear to have said there are just a few bad apples then I apologise. there are many bad apples, and systemic failures which understandably contribute to a loss of confidence in all or most of our institutions. The points I want to make are
1. not all MPs, presenters, priests or journalists are immoral scum bags.
2. The loss of trust, however well merited, could have disastrous consquences.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chas of the Dicker:
2. The loss of trust, however well merited, could have disastrous consquences.
Yes, but mentioning the loss of trust without collapse in morality makes it sound like it's an ultimate rather than proximate cause.
Which also suggests that we can fix things by fixing the loss of trust - rather than dealing with the underlying issues.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
During the recent boom, some say that over 75% of new jobs (others say closer to 99%) created in Britain went to immigrants. Does that suggest to you that immigration might have been too high?
A largely bogus argument to be honest - the actual british workforce shrank slightly over that period due to demographic changes - so in that sense it isn't surprising that of actual new jobs in the economy a large percentage were garnered by immigrants. Imagine a situation where unemployment was stable, employment increased. It wouldn't be surprising to find that immigrants took most of those 'new jobs'.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surely more jobs going to immigrants suggests that British people are just less willing/less qualified?
Speaking as a citizen of a country somewhat less rich than Britain, my comment is this. Britain is a rich country. My salary would possibly be a third or a half higher if I did the same job in the UK. A hefty amount of our top grads (educated in a system generally considered better than Britain's) in various disciplines move to the UK (along with other places) for wages and because there is more opportunity for advancement in various ways.
So, it is probably true that immigrants take British jobs: the locals are competing with the cream of the crop from elsewhere and are bound to lose out to an extent. On the other hand, there is no question that British industry benefits from these superior-quality immigrants.
Britain is one of a group of countries that skims off the best workers from around the world. Anyone who thinks that's a bad thing should consider what it's like to be outside that group.
I think there's a lot of truth in this post.
High immigration is good for the economy to the extent that employers now benefit from a bigger pool of applicants to choose from. If I were an employer, I'd be very pleased with that state of affairs. But what's good for employers isn't necessarily good for Mr and Ms Ordinary, who now have far greater competition for work in certain fields, in certain parts of the country.
I suppose that ideally, greater competition from immigrants would encourage British jobseekers to gain better skills and develop a stronger work ethic, etc. But I'm not convinced that this is happening. I could be wrong.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
On the other hand UKIP may be to the UK what the SNP under Alex Salmond is to Scotland. Fringe loonies to begin with...then a change...then mainstream...then the largest party.
Interesting times - and even more interesting and amusing the transparent falling-over-themselves-to-be-nice-to UKIP by MPs from the major parties.
At what point do you think the SNP were "fringe loonies"? They were founded in 1934 by the merger of two previous parties; my great-great-grandfather was a member of one of the previous parties c1890.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I used to know a UKIP councillor. I won't identify him because I have no idea who is will this, but he cheerfully identified himself as a racist, and had a long, articulate, explanation as to why. He didn't see why he should hide the fact; I assume that he didn't hide it from the rest of his party and it didn't bother them.
In fairness I think most parties are struggling to recruit candidates for councillors who aren't total loons.
One of the most thoroughly unpleasant, racist and homophobic individuals I have ever met was a Tory district councillor. He managed to encapsulate all the negative stereotypes one associates with politicians, religious people, religious conservatives and conservative politicians, and it's inconceivable that the local party didn't know his views. However, he was a local grandee, and nobody really wants to be a district councillor.
Lest anyone is inclined to feel superior, I should note he was also for many years an outspoken member of the General Synod.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Ricardus
In fairness I think most parties are struggling to recruit candidates for councillors who aren't total loons.
One of the biggest hurdles to recruiting local councillors is the amount of time it takes and when they hold meetings.
In the old days of the 9-5 job which was fairly close to home it was maybe not such a big deal, but with employers expecting ever greater flexibility from staff, with the "presenteeism" culture, many people commuting for over an hour each way to work, you are asking a lot for people to stand for a local council.
My local council meetings start at 7pm - fine if you work locally but if you commute to either the nearest city or London impossible unless you finish work at 4.30 or even earlier. Meetings usually last for 3 hours so anyone who has gone straight from work to a meeting doesn't get to eat either.
The result is that our councillors are either local business owners or people who have retired.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surely more jobs going to immigrants suggests that British people are just less willing/less qualified?
Speaking as a citizen of a country somewhat less rich than Britain, my comment is this. Britain is a rich country. My salary would possibly be a third or a half higher if I did the same job in the UK. A hefty amount of our top grads (educated in a system generally considered better than Britain's) in various disciplines move to the UK (along with other places) for wages and because there is more opportunity for advancement in various ways.
So, it is probably true that immigrants take British jobs: the locals are competing with the cream of the crop from elsewhere and are bound to lose out to an extent. On the other hand, there is no question that British industry benefits from these superior-quality immigrants.
Britain is one of a group of countries that skims off the best workers from around the world. Anyone who thinks that's a bad thing should consider what it's like to be outside that group.
I think there's a lot of truth in this post.
High immigration is good for the economy to the extent that employers now benefit from a bigger pool of applicants to choose from. If I were an employer, I'd be very pleased with that state of affairs. But what's good for employers isn't necessarily good for Mr and Ms Ordinary, who now have far greater competition for work in certain fields, in certain parts of the country.
Mr & Ms Ordinary also gain a more plausible excuse for staying on their sofa, and whinging about how difficult it is to get a job; parts of the media and some political parties get a lot of leverage here and to a degree I have some sympathy too, but Mr & Ms Ordinary are mis-directing their ire.
quote:
I suppose that ideally, greater competition from immigrants would encourage British jobseekers to gain better skills and develop a stronger work ethic, etc. But I'm not convinced that this is happening. I could be wrong.
Gaining the skills and acquiring a work ethic is only a part of it. Most of our homes are either owner-occupied or social housing so that market is inflexible compared to homes on continental Europe. One way or another it's difficult to relocate around Britain given that and the expense of travelling to work.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Mr & Ms Ordinary also gain a more plausible excuse for staying on their sofa, and whinging about how difficult it is to get a job; parts of the media and some political parties get a lot of leverage here and to a degree I have some sympathy too, but Mr & Ms Ordinary are mis-directing their ire.
Maybe so; but why would governments or political parties want to engineer a situation whereby its own citizens end up becoming de-incentivised to work? I agree with you - the root of the problem isn't immigrants themselves, but those who have created this state of affairs.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Mr & Ms Ordinary also gain a more plausible excuse for staying on their sofa, and whinging about how difficult it is to get a job; parts of the media and some political parties get a lot of leverage here and to a degree I have some sympathy too, but Mr & Ms Ordinary are mis-directing their ire.
Maybe so; but why would governments or political parties want to engineer a situation whereby its own citizens end up becoming de-incentivised to work? I agree with you - the root of the problem isn't immigrants themselves, but those who have created this state of affairs.
It's in the interests of big business, the pay masters of government and the real drivers of globalisation/globalism or whatever you want to call it. They get to import cheap labour from abroad or simply outsource to a cheaper location. It's win win except for the people out of work or those people living in poorer parts of the world who have had their workforce lured away from them. It's just another form of imperialism the only difference being that one doesn't have to send armies abroad anymore.
[ 06. May 2013, 13:15: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
They get to import cheap labour from abroad or simply outsource to a cheaper location. It's win win except for the people out of work or those people living in poorer parts of the world who have had their workforce lured away from them....
..... or those working in poorer parts who are herded into a building which is in an imminent state of collapse.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Mr & Ms Ordinary also gain a more plausible excuse for staying on their sofa, and whinging about how difficult it is to get a job; parts of the media and some political parties get a lot of leverage here and to a degree I have some sympathy too, but Mr & Ms Ordinary are mis-directing their ire.
Maybe so; but why would governments or political parties want to engineer a situation whereby its own citizens end up becoming de-incentivised to work? I agree with you - the root of the problem isn't immigrants themselves, but those who have created this state of affairs.
The 'de-incentivisation' is (IMO) an unintentional consequence of a cockeyed benefits system. Government policies and unintentional consequences go together (cf the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from the South Atlantic which led to Margaret Thatcher's almost mythological status!).
It takes time to get assessed for the various benefits but worse than that, if and when you get a chance to move into work, the benefits are withdrawn at such a rate that you may actually end up worse off.
The problems with the benefit system are accentuated if the job is part time, of variable hours or temporary, for the system is designed around having a job or not having a job, and certainly not a half-way house between 16 and 35 hours per week at which one's net income hardly increases at all! If you consider benefit withdrawal as a tax on additional earned income (ie, that from a few hours extra work), then it can exceed 100%, which makes the complaints of high earners that taxes of over 40% are a disincentive to hard work look pretty hollow. The underlying problem is not that benefits are generous, because they are set at subsistence level, but that housing costs are high, astonishingly so in some areas, and wages are woeful, with employers benefitting more from the Tax Credit schemes than the recipients do.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
They get to import cheap labour from abroad or simply outsource to a cheaper location. It's win win except for the people out of work or those people living in poorer parts of the world who have had their workforce lured away from them....
..... or those working in poorer parts who are herded into a building which is in an imminent state of collapse.
Indeed.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
An interesting point to note from the recent elections is that BNP support evaporated.
It appears there is a reservoir of votes that will not be cast for established parties on the basis they are out of touch. When it became clear that UKIP had momentum, previous supporters of the BNP decamped en mass to UKIP as a more acceptable alternative.
I suppose that is a good thing, but the fact that those votes didn't go to any of the major parties perhaps indicates how those parties have ceased to be mass movements. Membership of a major political party has become extremely unusual. I am wondering if it has become rather like taking membership of the Communist Party - something done for career advancement rather than political belief. A political party that no longer has mass membership from which to canvass views becomes reliant on advisors and focus groups instead, and I imagine that makes the job of senior politicians a good deal harder.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Sioni Sais - good point about the UK housing market. It always amazes me how much more popular renting is on the continent, or rather how unpopular it is here (and even more so in the US). I'd much rather rent.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
An interesting point to note from the recent elections is that BNP support evaporated.
It appears there is a reservoir of votes that will not be cast for established parties on the basis they are out of touch. When it became clear that UKIP had momentum, previous supporters of the BNP decamped en mass to UKIP as a more acceptable alternative.
I'm not sure the BNP has a mass of support (although even a neutrino has mass) left by this round of local elections. Those that voted may well have gone to UKIP rather than elsewhere but it would be a pretty small percentage of UKIPs support. UKIP simply isn't nasty enough for BNP supporters, so I expect most would have stayed at home.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'd much rather rent.
I can't imagine anything worse. Paying all that money and having nothing to show for it at the end, no asset to sell or leave to your kids. And the only advantage being that you can more easily leave all your friends and family behind to move to a completely different place to find a job? Screw that.
And as for the whole "move to where the jobs are" thing - isn't that just another way of saying people should be encouraged to "get on their bikes"? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'd much rather rent.
I can't imagine anything worse. Paying all that money and having nothing to show for it at the end, no asset to sell or leave to your kids. And the only advantage being that you can more easily leave all your friends and family behind to move to a completely different place to find a job? Screw that.
And as for the whole "move to where the jobs are" thing - isn't that just another way of saying people should be encouraged to "get on their bikes"?
Over the next 30 years, 2.6 million interest-only mortgages will come to an end. They are functionally identical to renting if you are not saving separately to pay off the principal of the loan. (UK figures).
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'd much rather rent.
I can't imagine anything worse. Paying all that money and having nothing to show for it at the end, no asset to sell or leave to your kids. And the only advantage being that you can more easily leave all your friends and family behind to move to a completely different place to find a job? Screw that.
And as for the whole "move to where the jobs are" thing - isn't that just another way of saying people should be encouraged to "get on their bikes"?
I do not want to have children so that's not an issue for me. None of my friends and family all live in the same place. For me, renting means I am not tied down and leaving on a whim to have an adventure is possible. It's not about it being easier to move for work, although that is an advantage.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Over the next 30 years, 2.6 million interest-only mortgages will come to an end. They are functionally identical to renting if you are not saving separately to pay off the principal of the loan. (UK figures).
Indeed, and therefore the same criticisms apply to them as to renting.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Mr & Ms Ordinary also gain a more plausible excuse for staying on their sofa, and whinging about how difficult it is to get a job; parts of the media and some political parties get a lot of leverage here and to a degree I have some sympathy too, but Mr & Ms Ordinary are mis-directing their ire.
Maybe so; but why would governments or political parties want to engineer a situation whereby its own citizens end up becoming de-incentivised to work? I agree with you - the root of the problem isn't immigrants themselves, but those who have created this state of affairs.
The 'de-incentivisation' is (IMO) an unintentional consequence of a cockeyed benefits system. Government policies and unintentional consequences go together (cf the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from the South Atlantic which led to Margaret Thatcher's almost mythological status!).
It takes time to get assessed for the various benefits but worse than that, if and when you get a chance to move into work, the benefits are withdrawn at such a rate that you may actually end up worse off.
The problems with the benefit system are accentuated if the job is part time, of variable hours or temporary, for the system is designed around having a job or not having a job, and certainly not a half-way house between 16 and 35 hours per week at which one's net income hardly increases at all! If you consider benefit withdrawal as a tax on additional earned income (ie, that from a few hours extra work), then it can exceed 100%, which makes the complaints of high earners that taxes of over 40% are a disincentive to hard work look pretty hollow. The underlying problem is not that benefits are generous, because they are set at subsistence level, but that housing costs are high, astonishingly so in some areas, and wages are woeful, with employers benefitting more from the Tax Credit schemes than the recipients do.
All that + the astronomical cost of childcare.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Over the next 30 years, 2.6 million interest-only mortgages will come to an end. They are functionally identical to renting if you are not saving separately to pay off the principal of the loan. (UK figures).
Indeed, and therefore the same criticisms apply to them as to renting.
Hardly. Those who rent are under no illusion that they will ever own their homes. Those who have interest-only mortgages probably took out endowment policies and these aren't paying out the sums expected. They were another Ponzi scheme, those selling them made a fast buck, but YMMV.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Sioni Sais
Hardly. Those who rent are under no illusion that they will ever own their homes. Those who have interest-only mortgages probably took out endowment policies and these aren't paying out the sums expected. They were another Ponzi scheme, those selling them made a fast buck, but YMMV.
Endowment policies will pay out at least the sum for which they were sold - so if you took out an Endowment for £30,000 it will pay you that, guaranteed.
Where the problem lies is twofold.
First, people were given illustrations which assumed that the stockmarket would continue to perform at a certain level - a level which was set very optimistically. Unfortunately people always tend to assume the best, rather than the worst, so if they took out a policy for £30,000 but were given an illustration that showed a possible end benefit of £45,000 they based all their future calculations on the larger sum. Not the salesman's fault unless he told them this was bound to happen.
Second, it should have been pointed out to people who took out Endowments that when they came to sell and move on, or when money became less tight, they should take out a repayment mortgage, either adding it to the Endowment to make up the bigger sum or just keep the Endowment running as a savings vehicle. This often didn't happen because people wanted a more expensive property or they were still working under the delusion that their Endowment would pay back 150% or whatever, not the guaranteed sum.
Finally, it has usually been possible for people to choose to pay more than the amount of their mortgage payments if they choose. If people had increased their mortgage payments in line with increases in salary they would now have some equity in their property but, by-and-large, most have chosen instead to have the more expensive holiday, second holiday, etc - it was really this money that fuelled the false boom of the 2000s.
In rare cases people may have had a mortgage that did not allow overpayments, but the way has always been open to them either to change their mortgage or, if they didn't want to pay penalty charges, to take the extra money and put it into a high-yield interest bearing account and leave it there for the day when the Endowment became due.
Financial provision for the future has always carried a risk but in the case of Endowments many people have adopted a position of purblind ignorance out of all proportion to their ability in other financial spheres. To call Endowments a "Ponzi Scheme" is unfair: granted some of the commissions payable were rather high but on the whole the growth of funds in Endowment policies was and is reasonable. For example, an Endowment Policy for £30,000 taken out by a 35 year old in about 1990 would have cost roughly £60 per month: after 25 years you will get back £30,000 for premiums paid of £18,000 - not a bad rate of return, given that it also went towards the roof over your head.
People need to stop whingeing and live within their means.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
People need to stop whingeing and live within their means.
The problem is that the housing market is an area where people living above their means has an obvious (and fairly large effect) on everyone else.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Sioni Sais
Hardly. Those who rent are under no illusion that they will ever own their homes. Those who have interest-only mortgages probably took out endowment policies and these aren't paying out the sums expected. They were another Ponzi scheme, those selling them made a fast buck, but YMMV.
Endowment policies will pay out at least the sum for which they were sold - so if you took out an Endowment for £30,000 it will pay you that, guaranteed.
Where the problem lies is twofold.
First, people were given illustrations which assumed that the stockmarket would continue to perform at a certain level - a level which was set very optimistically. Unfortunately people always tend to assume the best, rather than the worst, so if they took out a policy for £30,000 but were given an illustration that showed a possible end benefit of £45,000 they based all their future calculations on the larger sum. Not the salesman's fault unless he told them this was bound to happen.
Second, it should have been pointed out to people who took out Endowments that when they came to sell and move on, or when money became less tight, they should take out a repayment mortgage, either adding it to the Endowment to make up the bigger sum or just keep the Endowment running as a savings vehicle. This often didn't happen because people wanted a more expensive property or they were still working under the delusion that their Endowment would pay back 150% or whatever, not the guaranteed sum.
Finally, it has usually been possible for people to choose to pay more than the amount of their mortgage payments if they choose. If people had increased their mortgage payments in line with increases in salary they would now have some equity in their property but, by-and-large, most have chosen instead to have the more expensive holiday, second holiday, etc - it was really this money that fuelled the false boom of the 2000s.
In rare cases people may have had a mortgage that did not allow overpayments, but the way has always been open to them either to change their mortgage or, if they didn't want to pay penalty charges, to take the extra money and put it into a high-yield interest bearing account and leave it there for the day when the Endowment became due.
Financial provision for the future has always carried a risk but in the case of Endowments many people have adopted a position of purblind ignorance out of all proportion to their ability in other financial spheres. To call Endowments a "Ponzi Scheme" is unfair: granted some of the commissions payable were rather high but on the whole the growth of funds in Endowment policies was and is reasonable. For example, an Endowment Policy for £30,000 taken out by a 35 year old in about 1990 would have cost roughly £60 per month: after 25 years you will get back £30,000 for premiums paid of £18,000 - not a bad rate of return, given that it also went towards the roof over your head.
People need to stop whingeing and live within their means.
Yeah, problem was that the salesman told you it would actually cover a £40,000 mortgage, no problem mate, and probably give you another 10 grand over that. At least. And implied you were a completely economically illiterate idiot if you thought you should be more cautious.
[ 07. May 2013, 14:26: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Well, I'm not sure how people who took out interest only mortgages thought the capital was going to be paid off if they didn't organise some kind of repayment method; the clue's in the name. Endowments is another matter though peeps...
As to UKIP's performance, it may well just be a flash in the pan rather than the beginning of some kind of rise to power or at least significance. I don't think it's just about the EU though: I think that what the vote does show is that there is a sizeable chunk of the electorate (or at least those who bother to vote) who are disillusioned with the political establishment, perceiving it as belonging to three more or less liberal parties with not a lot to choose between them, who have had enough of that state of affairs and want to at least try something different.
[ 07. May 2013, 14:30: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
People need to stop whingeing and live within their means.
You may have missed the news - possibly because you were living on Mars, or something - that hundreds of thousands of people managed to claim compensation from their endowment providers because they'd been mis-sold the product.
Bankers need to stop shafting the public and live within their means.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
People need to stop whingeing and live within their means.
You may have missed the news - possibly because you were living on Mars, or something - that hundreds of thousands of people managed to claim compensation from their endowment providers because they'd been mis-sold the product.
Bankers need to stop shafting the public and live within their means.
L'Organist is unaware of the scale of the problem. The difference wasn't between £30,000 guaranteed and £45/50,000 anticipated. I was sold an endowment in 1987 costing about £45 per month with a guaranteed return of £9,000 and an anticipated return, to cover the sum advanced, of £45,000. The guy who sold us the policy showed the long-term performance of the stock exchange, but that was a stock exchange that didn't have to cope with millions of endowment policies grumbling away inside it. Then interest rates went one way, the stock market another, house prices dipped a bit and, to put the lid on it I lost my job. Yup, the perfect storm. The house had to go, in a hurry and at a loss, and we haven't got into the situation of being able to buy one since. Can anyone tell me why I should ever again trust a financial institution or advisor of any kind?
We weren't living beyond our means. Our means were sufficient, then circumstances changed (when Norman Lamont, who famously couldn't keep his credit card in order, became chancellor). Did the government assist housebuyers at that time? No. Did the government bail out the banks years later? Yes. Fuck them all and the horses they rode in on.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Doc Tor
You may have missed the news - possibly because you were living on Mars, or something - that hundreds of thousands of people managed to claim compensation from their endowment providers because they'd been mis-sold the product.
Of course I didn't miss it - but quite a bit of the mis-selling compensation has been based on two things: (1) Endowments that had such high up-front and on-going commissions that the sum guaranteed was much less than the premiums payable over the lifetime of a policy (see example of Sioni Sais below); and (2) Endowments sold that either didn't mention the guaranteed sum at all in the illustration of final value or that hid the information in such small print that it would be natural to assume that a higher value would be the sum one would get.
But a remedy was there if people didn't understand what they were being sold: as far back as 1980 Citizen's Advice Bureaux had financial experts to whom one could take things like an Endowment illustration and ask to have it explained: most banks also would have gone through paperwork like that and solicitors, people should have asked.
quote:
posted by Sioni Sais
The difference wasn't between £30,000 guaranteed and £45/50,000 anticipated. I was sold an endowment in 1987 costing about £45 per month with a guaranteed return of £9,000 and an anticipated return, to cover the sum advanced, of £45,000. The guy who sold us the policy showed the long-term performance of the stock exchange, but that was a stock exchange that didn't have to cope with millions of endowment policies grumbling away inside it. Then interest rates went one way, the stock market another, house prices dipped a bit and, to put the lid on it I lost my job. Yup, the perfect storm. The house had to go, in a hurry and at a loss, and we haven't got into the situation of being able to buy one since. Can anyone tell me why I should ever again trust a financial institution or advisor of any kind?
SS - you were mis-sold, no question. For starters, the guaranteed sum for a 25 year Endowment should have equalled at least the value of the premiums payable over the lifetime of the policy - in your case that would have been £13,500, not £9,000 - unless you had a low start-up premium policy, but that seems unlikely.
Second, for any "financial adviser" to give you a projected final value of £45,000 for a £540p.a. policy was madness.
If you still have the written illustration you were given at the time you signed up to this you should get in touch with the Financial Ombudsman (0207 964 0500). You may have been told that you are beyond the time limit but there are exceptions that can be made. If you were forced to sell before the companies were forced to write to policy holders you wouldn't have got a letter so it is reasonable to say that you assumed you wouldn't be able to claim - and that is not the case.
I'm truly sorry that your situation developed into such a nightmare like this: I wasn't saying there hasn't been mis-selling, but there was quite a lot of publicity about Endowments being over-relied on in the early 90s and the rules were tightened so that people should have been in a better position to make an informed decision in the 2000s when many of the interest-only mortgages were taken out.
Do look at making a claim - search through all the paperwork and don't be put off even if you can't find it all: the Ombudsman is well aware that certain companies were worse than others and if you were unfortunate enough to get an "adviser" who was an agent for one of them they may well be more inclined to help.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You say "people should have asked" - we did ask, and we got answers. The answers were wrong, but we didn't know that. It wasn't that we didn't understand the product; we were given quite clear guidance. Unfortunately it was shite.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I was a solicitor in the 1980s, working in conveyancing. I didn't sell endowment policies, but another department of the firm I worked for did. Whenever I saw (married / co-habiting) clients who were buying a house with an interest-only mortgage, backed by an endowment policy, I trotted out the standard line that that was a very sensible choice.
I went further, I bought my own house with a repayment mortgage, backed by an endowment policy. An endowment policy which matures later this year with a significant shortfall.
So, I agree with Karl, people did ask. However, most solicitors in my firm at the time genuinely believed that repayment / endowment mortgages were the way to go, for people buying a house jointly, who would benefit from the life insurance aspect of an endowment policy. Had either my husband or I died during the life of the policy, it would have paid out in full. The problem is that the guaranteed sum on maturity is a lot less than the sum payable on death.
If a single person bought a property, we recommended a straight repayment mortgage, on the basis that they didn't need the life insurance aspect.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Looks like the Tories are running scared - the Queen's speech is going to be about tough new immigration laws... story here
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
SS - you were mis-sold, no question. For starters, the guaranteed sum for a 25 year Endowment should have equalled at least the value of the premiums payable over the lifetime of the policy - in your case that would have been £13,500, not £9,000 - unless you had a low start-up premium policy, but that seems unlikely.
Second, for any "financial adviser" to give you a projected final value of £45,000 for a £540p.a. policy was madness.
A lot of the projected values were usually based on a very high terminal bonus - and at the time terminal bonuses had been unusually high because of several decades of endowment policies sold as life insurance that had been allowed to lapse.
quote:
Did the government assist housebuyers at that time? No. Did the government bail out the banks years later? Yes. Fuck them all and the horses they rode in on.
Particularly in the US you could make a pretty good case that assisting home owners would have actually also bailed out the banks without creating a mass of dislocating repossessions.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
SS - you were mis-sold, no question. For starters, the guaranteed sum for a 25 year Endowment should have equalled at least the value of the premiums payable over the lifetime of the policy - in your case that would have been £13,500, not £9,000 - unless you had a low start-up premium policy, but that seems unlikely.
Second, for any "financial adviser" to give you a projected final value of £45,000 for a £540p.a. policy was madness.
A lot of the projected values were usually based on a very high terminal bonus - and at the time terminal bonuses had been unusually high because of several decades of endowment policies sold as life insurance that had been allowed to lapse.
That was indeed the case. Don't worry L'Organist, I've got over it, but my opinion of the financial advisers at the building societies and of the insurance companies hasn't changed.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Today our radio news bulletins were graced with the voice of HM The Queen talking tough on immigration. If that doesn't bring rebellious Tories scurrying back to the fold then David C is going to have a problem come the next election.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I suppose it makes a change watching the right-wing tear itself apart in a fissiparous frenzy, as Cameron tries to out-flank UKIP in its anti-Europe, anti-furrins rhetoric and leaving any remaining conviction he might have possibly had (I'm straining at gnats here) dying like stranded fish as the tide goes out.
[ 08. May 2013, 18:50: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
My reading of the Queen's speech is that it will encourage driving without a license (and hence, driving without insurance and an MoT certificate hence unsafe vehicles) and more illegal and therefore unsafe letting by landlords who are unknown to the authorities. In fact there will be a whole lot more of unknown everything. Yes, a huge boost to the 'black' economy.
I await the draft legislation; we might find out at last whether it is possible to legislate for "firm but fair" immigration without being racist.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Sioni Sais
That was indeed the case. Don't worry L'Organist, I've got over it, but my opinion of the financial advisers at the building societies and of the insurance companies hasn't changed.
You should still look into the Ombudsman approach on the basis of nothing ventured...
"Financial advisers" at building societies and insurance companies were salesmen, pure and simple - and the same goes for people with the same title in banks.
Bank and building society "advisers" in particular were simply members of staff who'd been sent on a short course - frequently given either by an in-house team solely dealing with in-house products or a team from another institution with whom their employer had a tie-in.
What little financial education I had before the age of 25 came from a wealthy widow who'd come from a large, poor farming family (married the right ex-patient as a nurse!). Having had to watch every penny and then married into serious money she was deeply cynical about all "professional" money people - and her very shrewd handling of an already impressive estate left by her late husband showed her common-sense approach was pretty good:
- always, always, always aim to have at least 3 months' money in a savings account and leave it there
- your 3 months worth should include everything - mortgage/rent, bills, money for emergencies, trips to the pictures, new shoes, the lot
- always draw out of the bank money for the housekeeping in cash - weekly or monthly - and keep it in a separate purse or wallet; that way you know when you're over-spending
- if rent or mortgage payments go up keep up with them; when they go down keep putting aside or paying the same amount (if rent, bank the difference)
- if you have money to invest put it into things that everyone must buy: food, basic clothes, basic services, funeral directors
- before investing read about the company; if that sends you to sleep don't buy because you need to keep informed about your shares
- never buy shares on a "short-term" basis for a period of less than 5 years
- if a company offers you either cash or more shares find out why - its usually best to take the shares because you'll have a bigger voice at the AGM
- give children pocket money and explain how to budget to spend or save it: don't bail them out if they blue the lot on sweets
- always calculate income on getting the least amount and expenditure on the highest amounts
- read the financial pages and/or FT - and the economist is kept by most libraries so read that too
My late-lamented was hopeless with money - and although parsimonious at first glance had a tendency to indulge on the quiet. Their estate is a nightmare, frankly, but I have the luxury of time because I've always kept my own emergency money and, when allowed to, organised the joint things along reasonable lines.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I suppose it makes a change watching the right-wing tear itself apart in a fissiparous frenzy, as Cameron tries to out-flank UKIP in its anti-Europe, anti-furrins rhetoric and leaving any remaining conviction he might have possibly had (I'm straining at gnats here) dying like stranded fish as the tide goes out.
I wonder how many Tories are rethinking their opposition to AV.
(which was of course originally introduced in Australia to prevent a split right-wing losing an election).
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0