Bad Threat Day?

[threegee]

Remember the "Good day to bury bad news"?  I mean who would have thought an honest politico would ever have stooped to such a thing?

 

Well, today we have a UK threat level raised to 'severe' day.  But the small print says no intelligence to suggest an attack is "imminent". 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28986271

 

A cynic could be forgiven for thinking that these things always occur when highly inconvenient headlines are turning up on the news.  From fibbing about the threat it's only a small step to indirectly bringing-on an "event" though channels - all carefully screened by the Official Secrets Act of course!  That's the only thing which still commands the death penalty (if you disregard the possibility of completely bypassing due legal process).  No wonder Harold Wilson became increasingly paranoid the more he learned about how the system really works!

 

The man in the UK street might be asking who go us into such "threat situations" in the first place.  A further layer of intrigue, or just total and utter incompetence?  My money is on the latter.

[keith lockey]

It's an old political trick...the..."Would you trust a new government at this time of crisis..." ruse. "We are in power...we know the rules of the game...trust us"...yadda yadda yadda. Unfortunately sheeple believe them. Come election time and every dirty trick in the book will be brought out.

[Tonyp]

Kieth, ukip are doing that know Ba'ath remember people believe what they here & try to convince you it's the truth! Is it out there???

[threegee]

Come on Tony that's a generalisation!  What exactly are UKIP saying that isn't true or is pure scaremongering?

 

If a few of our politicos had pointed out a few of the problems a bit earlier we wouldn't be in some of the messes we are now. Was old Enoch Powell scaremongering when he warned us about uncontrolled immigration and blood on the streets? Hugh Gaitskell (and others in old Labour) put out several warnings about joining The Common Market only to have their own Loony-Liberal-Lefties completely ignore them in their rush to get onto the Euro gravy train.  Was he wrong too?

 

UKIPs policy on the EU is pretty much what old Labour's was.  It's New Labour that is standing on its head, and pretending that its traditional supporters aren't going to have to pay a heavy price!  Once we could have voted Labour to stop the mad rush to Euro integration by big-business types in the Tory party.  No more!  There's only one party that ordinary working people can vote for and that's UKIP!

 

Mr Farage also claimed that there is currently "massive oversupply” of unskilled labour from across the EU in the UK which is handing big corporations "big profits” and pushing the wages of British people down.

 

The Ukip leader said any would-be migrant to the UK should now be forced to prove that they will earn at least £27,500 – more than the average UK salary – to make sure they will "be net contributors to the UK economy.”

 

Mr Farage said that his party was not "scapegoating” Romanians and Bulgarians who may want to come to the UK to work but that open borders had "transformed the labour market” in Britain.

 

He said: "There is no question that it's pushed wage inflation down; it's helped big companies and big corporations and big landowners to make bigger profits - no argument about that.”

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10552055/Nigel-Farage-the-basic-principle-of-Enoch-Powells-River-of-Blood-speech-is-right.html

 

So he's scaremongering is he?  Is Labour telling you this, or is it just burying it's head in the sand and hoping it's traditional supporters won't notice that they are being screwed over?

 

Yes, the truth is out there, but you get at it by rational discussion, and not by misrepresenting what others stand for!

[mercuryg]

"Was old Enoch Powell scaremongering when he warned us about uncontrolled immigration and blood on the streets?"

 

Well, in the context of the time, yes he was. He didn't actually KNOW that he predicted would happen; he was making some (very educated) assumptions. That he put it in such a way, including the much mis-quoted 'rivers of blood' quote, could be construed as scaremongering. As for Gaitskell, it's open to debate whether our membership has served more positives or more negatives during its course. I'm of the belief it's the latter camp, but I don' actually know enough, across the board, to be sure.

 

While I'm pleased - and interested - to see Farage and UKIP rocking the boat, I remain unconvinced that they are not using the immigration bandwagon as a form of scaremongering, and comments such as this have alarm bells ringing for me:

 

"There is no question that it's pushed wage inflation down; it's helped big companies and big corporations and big landowners to make bigger profits - no argument about that.â€

 

Great, is my response; then those big companies and big corporations will remain in this country, and keep jobs over here. They are not, after all, solely employing Bulgarians.

 

BTW, this post is not meant to be inflammatory; I simply think that there are two sides to each coin.

[threegee]

 

...They are not, after all, solely employing Bulgarians.

...

 

I think you miss the point here.  It doesn't take very many people willing to work for less than "a living wage" to skew the market.  Rather like the odd distressed house sale in a street dropping the value of all the other properties.   I'm not arguing here for high uncompetitive wages, just pointing out the obvious dishonesty in Labour's policies.  They are saying one thing to their traditional supporters whilst pursuing policies that can only hugely disadvantage them.  Their complete silence on the EU says it all - like Rotherham it's something Guardian readers can't talk about rationally if at all, because - to them - the truth is ugly!  Labour (and what's left of the LDs) are no longer rational political parties, they're fully certified religions!

 

For goodness sake don't apologise for raising "inflammatory" points. Rational discussion is what has been lacking in this town for many decades.  Lots more please!

 

On the EU: all the LD's can come up to justify membership is the "three million jobs" that will be lost if we leave.  This isn't scaremongering then?  (Ignore the fact that the guy who actually did the counting says the loss claim is nonsense.)  There are few if any economic benefits (providing you're not a politico).  Name a single advantage that we'd not get from a simple customs union, and I will quote you ten disadvantages of membership.

 

The EU boils down to paying lots of money in to a central bureaucracy in the hope that you might get a little back here or there.  But the gotcha is that you only get it back if you agree to play the bureaucrats silly games.  This week it's hunt the big vacuum cleaner.  Its all about a "post democratic society".  Not a new idea really; I think Stalin and Hitler filed patents!  Sure you have elections, but the people you elect get to sit in a shiny expensive building and talk endlessly, whilst the commission (commissariat?) do the actual ruling.  However flawed Westminster is there's the distinct possibility that the electorate can push for change, and even say no to wars that the ruling elites scheme at in order to extend their power-base (Ukraine anyone?)

 

Whether you look at it economically or socially, the EU fails miserably as a way of directing society to a better future.  And, as far as the UK is concerned, it is predicated on a lie:  we voted for an economic union and got a political one.  We now know that you can't have one without the other - or so the politicos hope.  So, the next best thing is a simple customs union.  Yes, please, politicos.  Why exactly are we waiting if it's not to con us yet again?  (Oh, and look Mr Cameron; one of your own has just said that he's had insider info that's exactly what you are planning.)  That's the UKIP position, plain and simple.

[mercuryg]

"That's the UKIP position, plain and simple."

 

I'm not sure that UKIP's position is plain and simple, which is why I'm wary of them. UKIP has taken the immigration problem as it's public standpoint, because it knows that there are pockets of the population who believe it to be the single biggest problem affecting the country (or who are simply inherently racist, to be frank). It's not. I agree with you about Labour and dishonest policies, but do you actually believe that UKIP would perform everything it says? I'm afraid I see them as just another party, saying what people want to hear, but have no confidence they can deliver.

[threegee]

On the EU:

...

That's the UKIP position, plain and simple.

 

 

Nope, I don't believe ANY political party will ever deliver everything it says.  Not even half of what it claims.  But, when you have all the establishment parties going in one direction, and public opinion going in the exact opposite, democracy has badly failed.  When the result is that a party pops up to represent public opinion - policy comes up from the bottom - that's the only one a non-tribalist can support.

 

Racialist is one of these loony left substitute for thought labels.  Some of those so labelled will undoubtedly be bigots (though one often wonders if there's more of that on the part of the labeller than their target); most will have genuine concerns which at very least deserve listening to.  One of the ways the establishment uses to attack UKIP is to point to the demise of the BNP.  Fact is that the BNP still has its hard core of bigots, but there is now an outlet for those with genuine concerns that there wasn't before.  Actually, if you were a member of the BNP or kindred organisations you have to look to other than UKIP, because you fail the membership test - though of course UKIP can't stop you voting for them.  What the loony left were doing was to drive otherwise reasonable people into the BNP fold, because they had no other way of expressing their concerns.  Even bigots are better in a fold where reason and fairness can be applied by gentle social pressure.  These days you don't have to make a case for preventing radicalisation!

 

It really suits people on the extreme left to apply labels and try to demonise others; this makes them feel so much better about themselves and their failure to use their own god-given intelligence.  The right doesn't go in for demonisation, rather it regards the left as simply those who haven't seen the light.  Unfortunately, explaining why someone has over-simplistic wrong-headed ideas takes more than a sound bite - a hard fact which delights the left, and they do try hard not to miss a trick!

 

What I'm saying is that at a membership level UKIP is as flawed as any other political party.  When it gets power it will have exactly the same sorts of problems.  But, just at this moment, it's much better able to deal with those problems.  That's because it - like the very early Labour Party - is grass roots, and ... and here's the big one ... it is under intense attack from the establishment media machine, and simply has to keep its house in order.  There may come a day - there probably will be a day - when it's no longer worth supporting; when naked tribalism takes over from genuine policy. But, until then, it's very worthy of support, because it offers the only chance of the change we need, and it is genuinely democratic.

[keith lockey]

I've got to be careful how I word this because it might not come out the way I want it...

 

I will probably vote for UKIP at the next elections...someone pick Threegee off the floor. But my reason for voting for them might be simply because we need a change. And I don't think that is a correct reason...or good enough reason for voting for someone. I'll try this another way. The Tories seem, once again, to be self-centered. Only a lunatic would vote for Labour...full stop. So we have no one else but UKIP...and having no one else to vote for should not be the reason to vote for them. I have said this elsewhere...I have NO CONFIDENCE in any of the political parties and to say that we live in a democracy is wishful thinking, at least, and delusionary at most. Democracy is just a word...like Utopia...like Shangri La. It doesn't exist. It meant nothing in the days of Pericles and it means even less now. You may have the right to vote but when there is very little hope or substance at the end of that vote then it becomes meaningless. The next election is going to be a nail-biter, I just hope that whoever gets in can be as earnest and honest as possible.

[mercuryg]

"Racialist is one of these loony left substitute for thought labels."

 

And what is a 'tribalist'? (joking)

 

I'm  not sure you're getting the point I'm making to some degree; UKIP has a following now primarily because it is outspoken about immigration. Believe it or not, few of the average Joe's on the street could care less about the EU, but they don't want 'them coming over here and taking our jobs'. UKIP has centred on this - cleverly so, and rightly so to a degree - but it fills the likes of myself, a sceptic if you like, with a distinct sense of unease. What is their true agenda? I've read, scoured, listened, and I fail to see a point of real focus. Don't get me wrong, in a general election tomorrow they would likely get my vote - see Keith's comment's for similar reasons - but they are too loosely formed for my ultimate interest.

[Symptoms]

I've said it before here and I'll say it again ... ALL politicians ARE corrupt (or can be corrupted).  The voters' choice will always come down to a perception - who can damage them the least.

 

History is littered with the discarded entrails of political parties and movements who promised so much and delivered a range of outcomes which stretch from horror through to inertia.  Many have sweetened their foul tasting brew by pandering to the fears many folks have about the security of their jobs, services and homes but it's all smoke and mirrors.  The masses will always get stiffed by these shysters whilst the ruling elites gaze down on them with smirks on their faces.  Bastards the lot of them!

 

Owen Jones new book on the Establishment should be a good read as it shows what a "stranglehold" these elites have over the rest of us.  Yep, he is a left-wing author and commentator but fairly points an accusatory finger left and right.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Symptoms

[Alan Edgar (Eggy1948)]

1) The voters' choice will always come down to a perception - who can damage them the least.

 

2) Bastards the lot of them!

 

3) Owen Jones new book on the Establishment should be a good read as it shows what a "stranglehold" these elites have over the rest of us.  Yep, he is a left-wing author and commentator but fairly points an accusatory finger left and right.

1) So everybody, politicians and Joe Public, are looking after themselves. 

Is it not the only way? No matter what the subject there are many points of view, if there were not David Cameron and Alex Salmon would never say anything but the truth and we would back them all the way!

2) Agreed

3) Owen Jones - picks out the bits he agrees with winds you up with the bits he doesn't.

 

Take your pick - make your choice - enjoy the rest of your life.

Some things in life are bad

They can really make you mad

Other things just make you swear and curse

When you're chewing on life's gristle

Don't grumble, give a whistle

And this'll help things turn out for the best...

And...

...always look on the bright side

of life...

(Whistle)

Always look on the light side

of life...

(Whistle)