Chancellor, George Osborne, tight-lipped over Watford General Hospital rebuild funds

Watford Observer: Chancellor tight-lipped over Watford General Hospital rebuild funds Chancellor tight-lipped over Watford General Hospital rebuild funds

The Chancellor of the Exchequer remained tight-lipped about what cash is available for the rebuild of Watford General Hospital when he visited the town today.

George Osborne said detailed discussions had not yet started between the Treasury and West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust over funding for plans to redevelop the Watford General’s dilapidated infrastructure.

While visiting the newly-opened Morrison’s supermarket in West Watford he said that “specific discussions” needed to be had with the chief executive about what the future holds for the Vicarage Road hospital.

Asked what money was available for the redevelopment, Mr Osborne replied: “We need to get to the specific discussions with the new chief executive about what she needs and also what needs to be done at the hospital to make sure that its finances are in order.”

He added: “Those conversations are happening all over but we are here to make sure that the hospital has a great future.”

The Chancellor’s comments come as the trust is drawing up a new clinical strategy, which will outline its plans to redevelop Watford General.

Watford Observer:

Earlier this year the trust’s chief executive, Samantha Jones, described parts of the hospital’s infrastructure as “unfit for purpose” and last year it started housing patients in temporary cabins.

The hospital trust is currently trying to obtain foundation status, which would give it financial independence needed for any large scale redevelopment.

Yet the trust delayed its application for foundation status last year as its latest reports show its financial situation is not improving.

Mr Osborne said he hopes the hospital will sort out some of the problems that have “built up” over the years.

He said: “(What) we can do is make sure that, as Watford sorts out some of the problems that built up in the last decade, they can go forward.

Watford Observer:

“Hopefully they will be able to get foundation status then they will be able to get the resource that they need for new facilities.”

Mr Osborne added: “The good news is that, because we’re fixing the public finances in this country, we’re able to prioritise the things that really matter to local people, like the health service, and there is additional resource going into the health service to make sure, not only it covers the day-to-day cost but that we can build new buildings.”

Comments (61)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:06pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

No sign of a new hospital then, just added pressure on the existing one as services are cut elsewhere.

In the meantime we can all admire Dotty concreting over Farm Terrace with a tear in her eye for what she has lost. - her integrity.
No sign of a new hospital then, just added pressure on the existing one as services are cut elsewhere. In the meantime we can all admire Dotty concreting over Farm Terrace with a tear in her eye for what she has lost. - her integrity. Phil Cox (UKIP)

1:28pm Mon 9 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
No sign of a new hospital then, just added pressure on the existing one as services are cut elsewhere.

In the meantime we can all admire Dotty concreting over Farm Terrace with a tear in her eye for what she has lost. - her integrity.
So UKIP are opposed to the development on Farm Terrace then, oh of course they are they see being opposed as a populist policy , no doubt they want to also save then from the 100 Billion Bulgarians coming to squat on them whilst subletting council houses.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: No sign of a new hospital then, just added pressure on the existing one as services are cut elsewhere. In the meantime we can all admire Dotty concreting over Farm Terrace with a tear in her eye for what she has lost. - her integrity.[/p][/quote]So UKIP are opposed to the development on Farm Terrace then, oh of course they are they see being opposed as a populist policy , no doubt they want to also save then from the 100 Billion Bulgarians coming to squat on them whilst subletting council houses. dontknowynot

1:58pm Mon 9 Dec 13

not a regular says...

"The good news is that, because we’re fixing the public finances in this country"

Tell us George, how is spending more money that you can afford to pay back fixing public finances? How is giving MPs license to claim all expenses under the sun, fixing public finances? How are lucrative contracts for HS2 and the IT for UC, fixing public finances? How is subsidising reckless lending via Help to Buy fixing public finances? How is pledging our future gas and transport costs to the French and Chinese, fixing public finances?

Remember folks, watch what they do and not what they say. Red Yellow or Blue , they're all the same.
"The good news is that, because we’re fixing the public finances in this country" Tell us George, how is spending more money that you can afford to pay back fixing public finances? How is giving MPs license to claim all expenses under the sun, fixing public finances? How are lucrative contracts for HS2 and the IT for UC, fixing public finances? How is subsidising reckless lending via Help to Buy fixing public finances? How is pledging our future gas and transport costs to the French and Chinese, fixing public finances? Remember folks, watch what they do and not what they say. Red Yellow or Blue [even Green!], they're all the same. not a regular

2:33pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Cuetip says...

Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good.

I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.
Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good. I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late. Cuetip

2:52pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: No sign of a new hospital then, just added pressure on the existing one as services are cut elsewhere. In the meantime we can all admire Dotty concreting over Farm Terrace with a tear in her eye for what she has lost. - her integrity.
So UKIP are opposed to the development on Farm Terrace then, oh of course they are they see being opposed as a populist policy , no doubt they want to also save then from the 100 Billion Bulgarians coming to squat on them whilst subletting council houses.
We are opposed in principle and have been for some time.

Several of our members attended council meetings and public meetings over the issue. In principle we believe it is wrong and not only that, it is unnecessary. Whether it's populist or not is not of our concern. One might even say it's not populist in Watford as most people probably don't care, sadly.

If elected to the local council next year, UKIP will fight to retain Farm Terrace as allotments. I can't be clearer than that.

As to your racist comments about bulgarians, keep them to yourself, there's a good fellow. That's you talking, not us, and you are Labour I believe.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: No sign of a new hospital then, just added pressure on the existing one as services are cut elsewhere. In the meantime we can all admire Dotty concreting over Farm Terrace with a tear in her eye for what she has lost. - her integrity.[/p][/quote]So UKIP are opposed to the development on Farm Terrace then, oh of course they are they see being opposed as a populist policy , no doubt they want to also save then from the 100 Billion Bulgarians coming to squat on them whilst subletting council houses.[/p][/quote]We are opposed in principle and have been for some time. Several of our members attended council meetings and public meetings over the issue. In principle we believe it is wrong and not only that, it is unnecessary. Whether it's populist or not is not of our concern. One might even say it's not populist in Watford as most people probably don't care, sadly. If elected to the local council next year, UKIP will fight to retain Farm Terrace as allotments. I can't be clearer than that. As to your racist comments about bulgarians, keep them to yourself, there's a good fellow. That's you talking, not us, and you are Labour I believe. Phil Cox (UKIP)

2:55pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

not a regular wrote:
"The good news is that, because we’re fixing the public finances in this country" Tell us George, how is spending more money that you can afford to pay back fixing public finances? How is giving MPs license to claim all expenses under the sun, fixing public finances? How are lucrative contracts for HS2 and the IT for UC, fixing public finances? How is subsidising reckless lending via Help to Buy fixing public finances? How is pledging our future gas and transport costs to the French and Chinese, fixing public finances? Remember folks, watch what they do and not what they say. Red Yellow or Blue , they're all the same.
Well said.

One or two points may be arguable, but the general thrust is right-on!
[quote][p][bold]not a regular[/bold] wrote: "The good news is that, because we’re fixing the public finances in this country" Tell us George, how is spending more money that you can afford to pay back fixing public finances? How is giving MPs license to claim all expenses under the sun, fixing public finances? How are lucrative contracts for HS2 and the IT for UC, fixing public finances? How is subsidising reckless lending via Help to Buy fixing public finances? How is pledging our future gas and transport costs to the French and Chinese, fixing public finances? Remember folks, watch what they do and not what they say. Red Yellow or Blue [even Green!], they're all the same.[/p][/quote]Well said. One or two points may be arguable, but the general thrust is right-on! Phil Cox (UKIP)

5:08pm Mon 9 Dec 13

E.Coli says...

Cuetip wrote:
Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good.

I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.
?
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good. I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.[/p][/quote]? E.Coli

5:12pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Andrew1963 says...

If the money wasted on the massive reorganisation of the NHS had not been spent by the coalition government, hospitals like Watford would not be teetering on the edge of bankrupcy. The Daily Telegraph reports the costs at more than £3 billion, and the Daily Mail says more than £430 million has been spent on redundancy packages with many of those made redundant re-employed to do the same work in a different part of the NHS ! Meanwhile Watford General has barely 2 days running costs in cash in its bank account, and is literally running out of money.
If the money wasted on the massive reorganisation of the NHS had not been spent by the coalition government, hospitals like Watford would not be teetering on the edge of bankrupcy. The Daily Telegraph reports the costs at more than £3 billion, and the Daily Mail says more than £430 million has been spent on redundancy packages with many of those made redundant re-employed to do the same work in a different part of the NHS ! Meanwhile Watford General has barely 2 days running costs in cash in its bank account, and is literally running out of money. Andrew1963

5:19pm Mon 9 Dec 13

phil mitchel says...

I'm sure the mare waffled on about the hospital rebuild being a done deal when she said she wanted the Irish Club for the road along with the allotments. Was she trying to pull the wool over our eyes ? Surely not!
I'm sure the mare waffled on about the hospital rebuild being a done deal when she said she wanted the Irish Club for the road along with the allotments. Was she trying to pull the wool over our eyes ? Surely not! phil mitchel

5:34pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Nascot 6 says...

Cuetip wrote:
Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good.

I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.
????????????
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good. I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.[/p][/quote]???????????? Nascot 6

6:17pm Mon 9 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: No sign of a new hospital then, just added pressure on the existing one as services are cut elsewhere. In the meantime we can all admire Dotty concreting over Farm Terrace with a tear in her eye for what she has lost. - her integrity.
So UKIP are opposed to the development on Farm Terrace then, oh of course they are they see being opposed as a populist policy , no doubt they want to also save then from the 100 Billion Bulgarians coming to squat on them whilst subletting council houses.
We are opposed in principle and have been for some time.

Several of our members attended council meetings and public meetings over the issue. In principle we believe it is wrong and not only that, it is unnecessary. Whether it's populist or not is not of our concern. One might even say it's not populist in Watford as most people probably don't care, sadly.

If elected to the local council next year, UKIP will fight to retain Farm Terrace as allotments. I can't be clearer than that.

As to your racist comments about bulgarians, keep them to yourself, there's a good fellow. That's you talking, not us, and you are Labour I believe.
Irony is clearly wasted on you is it not?
But on the issue of Farm Terrace like a broken clock you are right, I await the second issue but fear it could be some time, I note however that our UKIP MEP whom you had difficulty in saying anything about has recently taken over from Bloom on the sexist front. Further I welcome your commitment to not putting up scaremongering billboards in 2014 re immigration.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: No sign of a new hospital then, just added pressure on the existing one as services are cut elsewhere. In the meantime we can all admire Dotty concreting over Farm Terrace with a tear in her eye for what she has lost. - her integrity.[/p][/quote]So UKIP are opposed to the development on Farm Terrace then, oh of course they are they see being opposed as a populist policy , no doubt they want to also save then from the 100 Billion Bulgarians coming to squat on them whilst subletting council houses.[/p][/quote]We are opposed in principle and have been for some time. Several of our members attended council meetings and public meetings over the issue. In principle we believe it is wrong and not only that, it is unnecessary. Whether it's populist or not is not of our concern. One might even say it's not populist in Watford as most people probably don't care, sadly. If elected to the local council next year, UKIP will fight to retain Farm Terrace as allotments. I can't be clearer than that. As to your racist comments about bulgarians, keep them to yourself, there's a good fellow. That's you talking, not us, and you are Labour I believe.[/p][/quote]Irony is clearly wasted on you is it not? But on the issue of Farm Terrace like a broken clock you are right, I await the second issue but fear it could be some time, I note however that our UKIP MEP whom you had difficulty in saying anything about has recently taken over from Bloom on the sexist front. Further I welcome your commitment to not putting up scaremongering billboards in 2014 re immigration. dontknowynot

7:09pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

You may call it Irony to come out with a racist comment and try to attribute it to others thinking.

Others might think it a desperate slur by a party that is afraid of losing voters to UKIP, typical of other insults that we have all seen before.

You pays your money, you takes your choice.

Truth be told, it probably reflects more on your party than ours, but all the other parties are at it, trying to smear UKIP, you are not alone although more and more people are realising this sort of thing no longer works.



As for Farm Terrace, we are agreed, despite our political differences, that the allotment holders have been stitched up like kippers by the LibDem-led council. So, on some issues we can work together in the interests of Watford. I look forward to that.
You may call it Irony to come out with a racist comment and try to attribute it to others thinking. Others might think it a desperate slur by a party that is afraid of losing voters to UKIP, typical of other insults that we have all seen before. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Truth be told, it probably reflects more on your party than ours, but all the other parties are at it, trying to smear UKIP, you are not alone although more and more people are realising this sort of thing no longer works. As for Farm Terrace, we are agreed, despite our political differences, that the allotment holders have been stitched up like kippers by the LibDem-led council. So, on some issues we can work together in the interests of Watford. I look forward to that. Phil Cox (UKIP)

8:20pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Cuetip says...

E.Coli wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good.

I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.
?
Try looking up lexis and it might lead exophoric references.
[quote][p][bold]E.Coli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good. I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.[/p][/quote]?[/p][/quote]Try looking up lexis and it might lead exophoric references. Cuetip

8:21pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Cuetip says...

Nascot 6 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good.

I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.
????????????
Try looking up lexis and it might lead to exophoric references.
[quote][p][bold]Nascot 6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good. I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.[/p][/quote]????????????[/p][/quote]Try looking up lexis and it might lead to exophoric references. Cuetip

9:19pm Mon 9 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
You may call it Irony to come out with a racist comment and try to attribute it to others thinking.

Others might think it a desperate slur by a party that is afraid of losing voters to UKIP, typical of other insults that we have all seen before.

You pays your money, you takes your choice.

Truth be told, it probably reflects more on your party than ours, but all the other parties are at it, trying to smear UKIP, you are not alone although more and more people are realising this sort of thing no longer works.



As for Farm Terrace, we are agreed, despite our political differences, that the allotment holders have been stitched up like kippers by the LibDem-led council. So, on some issues we can work together in the interests of Watford. I look forward to that.
it was your party that put up posters in town warning of the influx of Romanians and Bulgarians.

I would point out that you rejected my comments on the drunken fool Bloom and have been proved wrong.
You had no comment to make on our UKIP MEP Agnew and he has shown himself to be another fool.
Not to mention his predecessor.
I would also remind you that I was again correct to voice concern about your partys selection of candidates and racism, a claim that you denied yet your party leader sought (and failed to address)
I would also remind you that one of your UKIP MEPs left due to homophobic association of your partys group in Europe.
That the claim vote UKIP get UKIP is clearly nonsense as you have had over 25% of your MEPs leave.
Your party has openly sought to stir up fear of immigration, has sought to raise the specter of criminal gangs, fraudsters and scroungers and no doubt will do so again.
As to local policies all you offer is Tory policies with the one welcome exception of farm terrace allotments, where you seem to mimick Labour who's Councillors have consistently campaigned on behalf of the allotments.
Face facts I know more about your nasty little party than yourself
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: You may call it Irony to come out with a racist comment and try to attribute it to others thinking. Others might think it a desperate slur by a party that is afraid of losing voters to UKIP, typical of other insults that we have all seen before. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Truth be told, it probably reflects more on your party than ours, but all the other parties are at it, trying to smear UKIP, you are not alone although more and more people are realising this sort of thing no longer works. As for Farm Terrace, we are agreed, despite our political differences, that the allotment holders have been stitched up like kippers by the LibDem-led council. So, on some issues we can work together in the interests of Watford. I look forward to that.[/p][/quote]it was your party that put up posters in town warning of the influx of Romanians and Bulgarians. I would point out that you rejected my comments on the drunken fool Bloom and have been proved wrong. You had no comment to make on our UKIP MEP Agnew and he has shown himself to be another fool. Not to mention his predecessor. I would also remind you that I was again correct to voice concern about your partys selection of candidates and racism, a claim that you denied yet your party leader sought (and failed to address) I would also remind you that one of your UKIP MEPs left due to homophobic association of your partys group in Europe. That the claim vote UKIP get UKIP is clearly nonsense as you have had over 25% of your MEPs leave. Your party has openly sought to stir up fear of immigration, has sought to raise the specter of criminal gangs, fraudsters and scroungers and no doubt will do so again. As to local policies all you offer is Tory policies with the one welcome exception of farm terrace allotments, where you seem to mimick Labour who's Councillors have consistently campaigned on behalf of the allotments. Face facts I know more about your nasty little party than yourself dontknowynot

9:53pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Nascot 6 says...

Cuetip wrote:
Nascot 6 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good.

I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.
????????????
Try looking up lexis and it might lead to exophoric references.
????????????
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nascot 6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good. I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.[/p][/quote]????????????[/p][/quote]Try looking up lexis and it might lead to exophoric references.[/p][/quote]???????????? Nascot 6

10:42pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: You may call it Irony to come out with a racist comment and try to attribute it to others thinking. Others might think it a desperate slur by a party that is afraid of losing voters to UKIP, typical of other insults that we have all seen before. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Truth be told, it probably reflects more on your party than ours, but all the other parties are at it, trying to smear UKIP, you are not alone although more and more people are realising this sort of thing no longer works. As for Farm Terrace, we are agreed, despite our political differences, that the allotment holders have been stitched up like kippers by the LibDem-led council. So, on some issues we can work together in the interests of Watford. I look forward to that.
it was your party that put up posters in town warning of the influx of Romanians and Bulgarians. I would point out that you rejected my comments on the drunken fool Bloom and have been proved wrong. You had no comment to make on our UKIP MEP Agnew and he has shown himself to be another fool. Not to mention his predecessor. I would also remind you that I was again correct to voice concern about your partys selection of candidates and racism, a claim that you denied yet your party leader sought (and failed to address) I would also remind you that one of your UKIP MEPs left due to homophobic association of your partys group in Europe. That the claim vote UKIP get UKIP is clearly nonsense as you have had over 25% of your MEPs leave. Your party has openly sought to stir up fear of immigration, has sought to raise the specter of criminal gangs, fraudsters and scroungers and no doubt will do so again. As to local policies all you offer is Tory policies with the one welcome exception of farm terrace allotments, where you seem to mimick Labour who's Councillors have consistently campaigned on behalf of the allotments. Face facts I know more about your nasty little party than yourself
You are a Labour supporter and therefore part of the party that has left this country in such a mess.

If people vote UKIP, they will likely get UKIP candidates elected at elections. That is what we mean by VOTE UKIP, GET UKIP. But then I suspect you know that. Everybody else does, but I have repeated it for you, just in case.

We do not of course mimick Labour or indeed any other failed party, we decide our own policies based on the facts and principles involved. Can we help it if Labour happen to get a policy right once in a while? It's not unheard of and it is to be welcomed if Labour or any other party does the right thing. Where another party gets something right, we will support them on the issue, no matter who they are. Policies should count more than party politics.

Immigration is a key issue for the people of this country, or, as you and Mr Gordon Brown would call them, bigots. To pretend otherwise is to hold the electorate in contempt. Most of the problem is down to the EU which is another reason why we should leave the EU.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: You may call it Irony to come out with a racist comment and try to attribute it to others thinking. Others might think it a desperate slur by a party that is afraid of losing voters to UKIP, typical of other insults that we have all seen before. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Truth be told, it probably reflects more on your party than ours, but all the other parties are at it, trying to smear UKIP, you are not alone although more and more people are realising this sort of thing no longer works. As for Farm Terrace, we are agreed, despite our political differences, that the allotment holders have been stitched up like kippers by the LibDem-led council. So, on some issues we can work together in the interests of Watford. I look forward to that.[/p][/quote]it was your party that put up posters in town warning of the influx of Romanians and Bulgarians. I would point out that you rejected my comments on the drunken fool Bloom and have been proved wrong. You had no comment to make on our UKIP MEP Agnew and he has shown himself to be another fool. Not to mention his predecessor. I would also remind you that I was again correct to voice concern about your partys selection of candidates and racism, a claim that you denied yet your party leader sought (and failed to address) I would also remind you that one of your UKIP MEPs left due to homophobic association of your partys group in Europe. That the claim vote UKIP get UKIP is clearly nonsense as you have had over 25% of your MEPs leave. Your party has openly sought to stir up fear of immigration, has sought to raise the specter of criminal gangs, fraudsters and scroungers and no doubt will do so again. As to local policies all you offer is Tory policies with the one welcome exception of farm terrace allotments, where you seem to mimick Labour who's Councillors have consistently campaigned on behalf of the allotments. Face facts I know more about your nasty little party than yourself[/p][/quote]You are a Labour supporter and therefore part of the party that has left this country in such a mess. If people vote UKIP, they will likely get UKIP candidates elected at elections. That is what we mean by VOTE UKIP, GET UKIP. But then I suspect you know that. Everybody else does, but I have repeated it for you, just in case. We do not of course mimick Labour or indeed any other failed party, we decide our own policies based on the facts and principles involved. Can we help it if Labour happen to get a policy right once in a while? It's not unheard of and it is to be welcomed if Labour or any other party does the right thing. Where another party gets something right, we will support them on the issue, no matter who they are. Policies should count more than party politics. Immigration is a key issue for the people of this country, or, as you and Mr Gordon Brown would call them, bigots. To pretend otherwise is to hold the electorate in contempt. Most of the problem is down to the EU which is another reason why we should leave the EU. Phil Cox (UKIP)

10:44pm Mon 9 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

Nascot 6 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Nascot 6 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good.

I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.
????????????
Try looking up lexis and it might lead to exophoric references.
????????????
many questions one thing for sure is that this rubishing of the hospital is for a reason, I suspect to do with paying someone to take it of our hands and introducing charges for NHS treatment in due course.
This is a Gov that has tucked away a commitment to slash and sash to 1948 levels of gov spending, an impossibility without destroying the welfare state.
[quote][p][bold]Nascot 6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nascot 6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good. I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.[/p][/quote]????????????[/p][/quote]Try looking up lexis and it might lead to exophoric references.[/p][/quote]????????????[/p][/quote]many questions one thing for sure is that this rubishing of the hospital is for a reason, I suspect to do with paying someone to take it of our hands and introducing charges for NHS treatment in due course. This is a Gov that has tucked away a commitment to slash and sash to 1948 levels of gov spending, an impossibility without destroying the welfare state. dontknowynot

11:04pm Mon 9 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: You may call it Irony to come out with a racist comment and try to attribute it to others thinking. Others might think it a desperate slur by a party that is afraid of losing voters to UKIP, typical of other insults that we have all seen before. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Truth be told, it probably reflects more on your party than ours, but all the other parties are at it, trying to smear UKIP, you are not alone although more and more people are realising this sort of thing no longer works. As for Farm Terrace, we are agreed, despite our political differences, that the allotment holders have been stitched up like kippers by the LibDem-led council. So, on some issues we can work together in the interests of Watford. I look forward to that.
it was your party that put up posters in town warning of the influx of Romanians and Bulgarians. I would point out that you rejected my comments on the drunken fool Bloom and have been proved wrong. You had no comment to make on our UKIP MEP Agnew and he has shown himself to be another fool. Not to mention his predecessor. I would also remind you that I was again correct to voice concern about your partys selection of candidates and racism, a claim that you denied yet your party leader sought (and failed to address) I would also remind you that one of your UKIP MEPs left due to homophobic association of your partys group in Europe. That the claim vote UKIP get UKIP is clearly nonsense as you have had over 25% of your MEPs leave. Your party has openly sought to stir up fear of immigration, has sought to raise the specter of criminal gangs, fraudsters and scroungers and no doubt will do so again. As to local policies all you offer is Tory policies with the one welcome exception of farm terrace allotments, where you seem to mimick Labour who's Councillors have consistently campaigned on behalf of the allotments. Face facts I know more about your nasty little party than yourself
You are a Labour supporter and therefore part of the party that has left this country in such a mess.

If people vote UKIP, they will likely get UKIP candidates elected at elections. That is what we mean by VOTE UKIP, GET UKIP. But then I suspect you know that. Everybody else does, but I have repeated it for you, just in case.

We do not of course mimick Labour or indeed any other failed party, we decide our own policies based on the facts and principles involved. Can we help it if Labour happen to get a policy right once in a while? It's not unheard of and it is to be welcomed if Labour or any other party does the right thing. Where another party gets something right, we will support them on the issue, no matter who they are. Policies should count more than party politics.

Immigration is a key issue for the people of this country, or, as you and Mr Gordon Brown would call them, bigots. To pretend otherwise is to hold the electorate in contempt. Most of the problem is down to the EU which is another reason why we should leave the EU.
vote UKIP get UKIP is clearly nonsense

time and again UKIP CLLRs have been shown to be BNP etc and you know it.
Also having won 13 UKIP MEPS how many are left is it 8 or 9 clearly people have voted UKIP and ended up with Tory or independent
As for your assertion about labour its just rubbish straight out of the Tory/libdem handbook and you know it
As for immigration its largely linked to economic success irrespective of the EU or whatever as such migrant workers from poland in the decade of uninterrupted economic growth under Labour was more akin to the Windrush years than anything else. I very much doubt a large scale migrant worker inrush from Romania or anywhere else when there is not much work available.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: You may call it Irony to come out with a racist comment and try to attribute it to others thinking. Others might think it a desperate slur by a party that is afraid of losing voters to UKIP, typical of other insults that we have all seen before. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Truth be told, it probably reflects more on your party than ours, but all the other parties are at it, trying to smear UKIP, you are not alone although more and more people are realising this sort of thing no longer works. As for Farm Terrace, we are agreed, despite our political differences, that the allotment holders have been stitched up like kippers by the LibDem-led council. So, on some issues we can work together in the interests of Watford. I look forward to that.[/p][/quote]it was your party that put up posters in town warning of the influx of Romanians and Bulgarians. I would point out that you rejected my comments on the drunken fool Bloom and have been proved wrong. You had no comment to make on our UKIP MEP Agnew and he has shown himself to be another fool. Not to mention his predecessor. I would also remind you that I was again correct to voice concern about your partys selection of candidates and racism, a claim that you denied yet your party leader sought (and failed to address) I would also remind you that one of your UKIP MEPs left due to homophobic association of your partys group in Europe. That the claim vote UKIP get UKIP is clearly nonsense as you have had over 25% of your MEPs leave. Your party has openly sought to stir up fear of immigration, has sought to raise the specter of criminal gangs, fraudsters and scroungers and no doubt will do so again. As to local policies all you offer is Tory policies with the one welcome exception of farm terrace allotments, where you seem to mimick Labour who's Councillors have consistently campaigned on behalf of the allotments. Face facts I know more about your nasty little party than yourself[/p][/quote]You are a Labour supporter and therefore part of the party that has left this country in such a mess. If people vote UKIP, they will likely get UKIP candidates elected at elections. That is what we mean by VOTE UKIP, GET UKIP. But then I suspect you know that. Everybody else does, but I have repeated it for you, just in case. We do not of course mimick Labour or indeed any other failed party, we decide our own policies based on the facts and principles involved. Can we help it if Labour happen to get a policy right once in a while? It's not unheard of and it is to be welcomed if Labour or any other party does the right thing. Where another party gets something right, we will support them on the issue, no matter who they are. Policies should count more than party politics. Immigration is a key issue for the people of this country, or, as you and Mr Gordon Brown would call them, bigots. To pretend otherwise is to hold the electorate in contempt. Most of the problem is down to the EU which is another reason why we should leave the EU.[/p][/quote]vote UKIP get UKIP is clearly nonsense time and again UKIP CLLRs have been shown to be BNP etc and you know it. Also having won 13 UKIP MEPS how many are left is it 8 or 9 clearly people have voted UKIP and ended up with Tory or independent As for your assertion about labour its just rubbish straight out of the Tory/libdem handbook and you know it As for immigration its largely linked to economic success irrespective of the EU or whatever as such migrant workers from poland in the decade of uninterrupted economic growth under Labour was more akin to the Windrush years than anything else. I very much doubt a large scale migrant worker inrush from Romania or anywhere else when there is not much work available. dontknowynot

11:31pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

That's a relief!

Labour DID NOT leave this country in a mess AND the Labour leader DID NOT call that lady Labour supporter a bigot.

It was just something out of the Tory/LibDem handbook - Official!

You heard it here first.

DontKnowWhyNot, maybe you should change your name to CAn'tAcceptTheTruth.

Anything Labour says about immigration is to be taken with a small mountain range of salt after their shenanigans and blatant lies whilst in power. I'm just surprised anyone still trusts Labour on anything. I know I don't.
That's a relief! Labour DID NOT leave this country in a mess AND the Labour leader DID NOT call that lady Labour supporter a bigot. It was just something out of the Tory/LibDem handbook - Official! You heard it here first. DontKnowWhyNot, maybe you should change your name to CAn'tAcceptTheTruth. Anything Labour says about immigration is to be taken with a small mountain range of salt after their shenanigans and blatant lies whilst in power. I'm just surprised anyone still trusts Labour on anything. I know I don't. Phil Cox (UKIP)

6:47am Tue 10 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

Oh my little UKIP devotee you are addicted to spin
Tesco in watford actually went to Poland to recruit staff and rented property for them. WGH went to the Philippians for nurses, immigration of migrant workers was the solution to problems. Now that the Bullingdon toff has chocked of recovery for all bar the people at the very top the return of migrant workers to put downward pressure on wages or fill skill shortages is not going to happen.
Oh my little UKIP devotee you are addicted to spin Tesco in watford actually went to Poland to recruit staff and rented property for them. WGH went to the Philippians for nurses, immigration of migrant workers was the solution to problems. Now that the Bullingdon toff has chocked of recovery for all bar the people at the very top the return of migrant workers to put downward pressure on wages or fill skill shortages is not going to happen. dontknowynot

7:00am Tue 10 Dec 13

Cuetip says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Nascot 6 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Nascot 6 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good.

I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.
????????????
Try looking up lexis and it might lead to exophoric references.
????????????
many questions one thing for sure is that this rubishing of the hospital is for a reason, I suspect to do with paying someone to take it of our hands and introducing charges for NHS treatment in due course.
This is a Gov that has tucked away a commitment to slash and sash to 1948 levels of gov spending, an impossibility without destroying the welfare state.
interesting point.

The welfare state was founded on the basis of need, sometimes when you see the chaos in eg A & E, one wonders whether the ground been tilted towards the point of desperation forcing those in severe pain on sliding lengthy waiting lists to go private.

We still need to invest more in our own youngsters to stop the growing youth unemployment for we seem to be very reliant on overseas workers to plug the skills shortage.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nascot 6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nascot 6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good. I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.[/p][/quote]????????????[/p][/quote]Try looking up lexis and it might lead to exophoric references.[/p][/quote]????????????[/p][/quote]many questions one thing for sure is that this rubishing of the hospital is for a reason, I suspect to do with paying someone to take it of our hands and introducing charges for NHS treatment in due course. This is a Gov that has tucked away a commitment to slash and sash to 1948 levels of gov spending, an impossibility without destroying the welfare state.[/p][/quote]interesting point. The welfare state was founded on the basis of need, sometimes when you see the chaos in eg A & E, one wonders whether the ground been tilted towards the point of desperation forcing those in severe pain on sliding lengthy waiting lists to go private. We still need to invest more in our own youngsters to stop the growing youth unemployment for we seem to be very reliant on overseas workers to plug the skills shortage. Cuetip

7:33am Tue 10 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Oh my little UKIP devotee you are addicted to spin Tesco in watford actually went to Poland to recruit staff and rented property for them. WGH went to the Philippians for nurses, immigration of migrant workers was the solution to problems. Now that the Bullingdon toff has chocked of recovery for all bar the people at the very top the return of migrant workers to put downward pressure on wages or fill skill shortages is not going to happen.
What Spin?

Everything I said is true. It is well-documented and widely acknowledged to be true. There is even audio tape of Gordon calling that lady a Bigot because he thought the microphone had been turned off.

What was so interesting is how he appeared to behave towards the voter face to face and how he behaved and what he said when he thought he was in private.

Not good, was it?
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Oh my little UKIP devotee you are addicted to spin Tesco in watford actually went to Poland to recruit staff and rented property for them. WGH went to the Philippians for nurses, immigration of migrant workers was the solution to problems. Now that the Bullingdon toff has chocked of recovery for all bar the people at the very top the return of migrant workers to put downward pressure on wages or fill skill shortages is not going to happen.[/p][/quote]What Spin? Everything I said is true. It is well-documented and widely acknowledged to be true. There is even audio tape of Gordon calling that lady a Bigot because he thought the microphone had been turned off. What was so interesting is how he appeared to behave towards the voter face to face and how he behaved and what he said when he thought he was in private. Not good, was it? Phil Cox (UKIP)

11:31am Tue 10 Dec 13

LSC says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Oh my little UKIP devotee you are addicted to spin
Tesco in watford actually went to Poland to recruit staff and rented property for them. WGH went to the Philippians for nurses, immigration of migrant workers was the solution to problems. Now that the Bullingdon toff has chocked of recovery for all bar the people at the very top the return of migrant workers to put downward pressure on wages or fill skill shortages is not going to happen.
This can be looked at quite a few ways, but let me tell you my personal experience with Eastern European workers.
I worked for a while, on minimum wage in a warehouse doing an unskilled job. Most of my colleagues, about 30 of them, were from Eastern Europe and like all people, most of them were nice.

But there was one massive difference between us. All of them were young, and none had a car to run. I don't think any of them were married. Most lived 2 or 4 to a room in rented houses, some even 'hot-bunked' with night shift workers.
Living this way allowed the minimum wage to stretch quite far, especially as they were always eager for overtime as they didn't have much to go home to.
None had dreams of putting down roots here, they sent their money back to their homelands where minimum UK wages go even further, and all intended to give it about 5 years then return to a healthy nest-egg, settle down and start a family, while the next generation took their place in the UK. They were quite open about it, and fair play to them, those are the rules.

I, on the other hand, had a family, a mortgage and a car. Had my wife not also been working, we'd have gone under.

This is the reason people recruit in Poland and other countries. Minimum wage and maximum work. It isn't that British people don't want the jobs, as is so often spouted, it is that British people also want to put down roots and you simply cannot do that on low pay. I know, I've had to try it.
Yes, there are loads of scroungers too, I saw a few UK residents come and go, it appeared just to prove to the dole office that they were trying, and then going back to benefits.

The EU could work, but only with a level playing field. Taxation, benefits and wages need to be much closer aligned or you will get economic migration like the above and the money earned is eventually spent elsewhere which is bad for our economy, and not really great for theirs (people buying houses with money that the tax was paid on in another country, and no foreign investment in new factories because half the workforce is abroad).

So I personally do fear the EU expansion, because it will more of the same. There may be individual winners, but the majority will not benefit.

Just my thoughts.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Oh my little UKIP devotee you are addicted to spin Tesco in watford actually went to Poland to recruit staff and rented property for them. WGH went to the Philippians for nurses, immigration of migrant workers was the solution to problems. Now that the Bullingdon toff has chocked of recovery for all bar the people at the very top the return of migrant workers to put downward pressure on wages or fill skill shortages is not going to happen.[/p][/quote]This can be looked at quite a few ways, but let me tell you my personal experience with Eastern European workers. I worked for a while, on minimum wage in a warehouse doing an unskilled job. Most of my colleagues, about 30 of them, were from Eastern Europe and like all people, most of them were nice. But there was one massive difference between us. All of them were young, and none had a car to run. I don't think any of them were married. Most lived 2 or 4 to a room in rented houses, some even 'hot-bunked' with night shift workers. Living this way allowed the minimum wage to stretch quite far, especially as they were always eager for overtime as they didn't have much to go home to. None had dreams of putting down roots here, they sent their money back to their homelands where minimum UK wages go even further, and all intended to give it about 5 years then return to a healthy nest-egg, settle down and start a family, while the next generation took their place in the UK. They were quite open about it, and fair play to them, those are the rules. I, on the other hand, had a family, a mortgage and a car. Had my wife not also been working, we'd have gone under. This is the reason people recruit in Poland and other countries. Minimum wage and maximum work. It isn't that British people don't want the jobs, as is so often spouted, it is that British people also want to put down roots and you simply cannot do that on low pay. I know, I've had to try it. Yes, there are loads of scroungers too, I saw a few UK residents come and go, it appeared just to prove to the dole office that they were trying, and then going back to benefits. The EU could work, but only with a level playing field. Taxation, benefits and wages need to be much closer aligned or you will get economic migration like the above and the money earned is eventually spent elsewhere which is bad for our economy, and not really great for theirs (people buying houses with money that the tax was paid on in another country, and no foreign investment in new factories because half the workforce is abroad). So I personally do fear the EU expansion, because it will more of the same. There may be individual winners, but the majority will not benefit. Just my thoughts. LSC

12:20pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Well said LSC, and I think you have hit one of the main problems, benefits, wages and taxes.

The people of this country believe it belongs to them. Without asking, the politicians have given it to the EU.

They pay taxes and work for the good of the country. They hope that by playing by the rules they and the next generation, their children, will get a fair crack of the whip because that is the country we have built and the principles we and our forefathers have built it on. Fair wages for a fair day's work. A chance to live a decent life, free from poverty and with the opportunity to make something of yourself if you are prepared to work for it. The NHS and benefits to help the needy.

Then the rug is pulled out, not just by the Labour party, but by the Conservatives and LibDems as well, all under the direction of the EU. All the EU population are not only allowed into this country, they are encouraged to come here. The only trouble is, they can claim all the benefits that we pay for that we thought would be for british people because they had paid into them. They also work for less for the reasons LSC put so well. That's good for them, but if all that money goes abroad it is not good for this country's economy. On top of that, if our own people are not employed doing these jobs, we will end up paying them benefits and possibly put them into long-term joblessness. They could have been contributors to the economy, instead now they are a drain on the economy.

In all, that hits our economy and way of life in many ways, all of them negative apart from the businesses that get cheap labour and hard workers.

I have no objection to people coming to live and work in the UK, but it cannot be an open door policy. We must have controls that let in those we would wish to have, those we need, and keep out those that we do not want or do not currently need. It's always worked in the past.

UKIP alone offers that policy.

The other three main parties cannot offer that policy because it is against the rules of our EU masters that they have signed up to. No matter what Cameron says, he is committed to staying in the EU and the EU is committed to open borders.

The one and only solution is to leave the EU and just trade with it, which is what we were told in 1973 when we joined and re-iterated in 1975 when there last was a referendum on EU membership, nearly 40 years ago.

My personal belief is that politicians got away with this for so long because the people of this country would not believe they would be so betrayed by the politicians of the Labour and Conservative parties over the EU. Now people are waking up and joining UKIP to fight this betrayal. People who previously trusted Heath, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron and others who hid the truth and signed us up to treaties that do not work in the interests of the UK.

Removing benefits (all benefits) from everyone, standardising taxation and aligning wages, closing the NHS and all other similar "free" services would make the country far less attractive to some immigrants, but why should we have to do that when we could just leave the EU and manage our own borders sensibly?

Vote UKIP.
Well said LSC, and I think you have hit one of the main problems, benefits, wages and taxes. The people of this country believe it belongs to them. Without asking, the politicians have given it to the EU. They pay taxes and work for the good of the country. They hope that by playing by the rules they and the next generation, their children, will get a fair crack of the whip because that is the country we have built and the principles we and our forefathers have built it on. Fair wages for a fair day's work. A chance to live a decent life, free from poverty and with the opportunity to make something of yourself if you are prepared to work for it. The NHS and benefits to help the needy. Then the rug is pulled out, not just by the Labour party, but by the Conservatives and LibDems as well, all under the direction of the EU. All the EU population are not only allowed into this country, they are encouraged to come here. The only trouble is, they can claim all the benefits that we pay for that we thought would be for british people because they had paid into them. They also work for less for the reasons LSC put so well. That's good for them, but if all that money goes abroad it is not good for this country's economy. On top of that, if our own people are not employed doing these jobs, we will end up paying them benefits and possibly put them into long-term joblessness. They could have been contributors to the economy, instead now they are a drain on the economy. In all, that hits our economy and way of life in many ways, all of them negative apart from the businesses that get cheap labour and hard workers. I have no objection to people coming to live and work in the UK, but it cannot be an open door policy. We must have controls that let in those we would wish to have, those we need, and keep out those that we do not want or do not currently need. It's always worked in the past. UKIP alone offers that policy. The other three main parties cannot offer that policy because it is against the rules of our EU masters that they have signed up to. No matter what Cameron says, he is committed to staying in the EU and the EU is committed to open borders. The one and only solution is to leave the EU and just trade with it, which is what we were told in 1973 when we joined and re-iterated in 1975 when there last was a referendum on EU membership, nearly 40 years ago. My personal belief is that politicians got away with this for so long because the people of this country would not believe they would be so betrayed by the politicians of the Labour and Conservative parties over the EU. Now people are waking up and joining UKIP to fight this betrayal. People who previously trusted Heath, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron and others who hid the truth and signed us up to treaties that do not work in the interests of the UK. Removing benefits (all benefits) from everyone, standardising taxation and aligning wages, closing the NHS and all other similar "free" services would make the country far less attractive to some immigrants, but why should we have to do that when we could just leave the EU and manage our own borders sensibly? Vote UKIP. Phil Cox (UKIP)

2:39pm Tue 10 Dec 13

John Dowdle says...

I was not in the country at the time so I did not participate in the 1975 referendum but my understanding is that people voted on the question of staying in the Common Market, not on being members of the European Union, which had not at that stage yet come into existence.
On the subject of the hospital, which is where this blog started, it still remains the case that the hospital is not sufficiently financially viable to attain foundation status, which means that the expansion plans for the hospital cannot take place for probably the next decade.
This re-opens the question as to the future of the allotments, I believe?
I was not in the country at the time so I did not participate in the 1975 referendum but my understanding is that people voted on the question of staying in the Common Market, not on being members of the European Union, which had not at that stage yet come into existence. On the subject of the hospital, which is where this blog started, it still remains the case that the hospital is not sufficiently financially viable to attain foundation status, which means that the expansion plans for the hospital cannot take place for probably the next decade. This re-opens the question as to the future of the allotments, I believe? John Dowdle

3:45pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

John Dowdle wrote:
I was not in the country at the time so I did not participate in the 1975 referendum but my understanding is that people voted on the question of staying in the Common Market, not on being members of the European Union, which had not at that stage yet come into existence. On the subject of the hospital, which is where this blog started, it still remains the case that the hospital is not sufficiently financially viable to attain foundation status, which means that the expansion plans for the hospital cannot take place for probably the next decade. This re-opens the question as to the future of the allotments, I believe?
In a fair world, yes. In the LibDem-run council of Watford, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Remember Dotty's crocodile tears as she sold them to the developer? I doubt she will now do the right thing if she didn't do it before.

The only thing is, what's in it for her and the LibDems that they are so desperate to sell off the allotments?
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: I was not in the country at the time so I did not participate in the 1975 referendum but my understanding is that people voted on the question of staying in the Common Market, not on being members of the European Union, which had not at that stage yet come into existence. On the subject of the hospital, which is where this blog started, it still remains the case that the hospital is not sufficiently financially viable to attain foundation status, which means that the expansion plans for the hospital cannot take place for probably the next decade. This re-opens the question as to the future of the allotments, I believe?[/p][/quote]In a fair world, yes. In the LibDem-run council of Watford, I wouldn't hold my breath. Remember Dotty's crocodile tears as she sold them to the developer? I doubt she will now do the right thing if she didn't do it before. The only thing is, what's in it for her and the LibDems that they are so desperate to sell off the allotments? Phil Cox (UKIP)

4:25pm Tue 10 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

Oh a whole coven of UKIP devotees now.
I did give two examples but geography dictates they ignore one, never mind.
The fact remains that Migrant workers are reliant on there being work,and this gov has chocked of recovery and that therefore there is no work.
In the meantime the Government is paying the workhouse supervisors (sorry Atos) to go round bullying the ill and disabled into work related activities. Again putting downward pressure on demand for Migrant Labour.
In relation to the welfare state, Health, education, Pensions and welfare by far and away the biggest provision is for Pensions.
If anyone can explain to me how we can slash the Welfare budget to 1948 levels without affecting the health care we all rely opun, without destroying pension provisions and without undermining education please do.
In the light of the projected slashing of welfare state spending I fail to see the viability of the Hospital with or without the Allotment site. I also fail to see the significance of the EU debate given the fundamental changes implicit in Slashers cuts
Oh a whole coven of UKIP devotees now. I did give two examples but geography dictates they ignore one, never mind. The fact remains that Migrant workers are reliant on there being work,and this gov has chocked of recovery and that therefore there is no work. In the meantime the Government is paying the workhouse supervisors (sorry Atos) to go round bullying the ill and disabled into work related activities. Again putting downward pressure on demand for Migrant Labour. In relation to the welfare state, Health, education, Pensions and welfare by far and away the biggest provision is for Pensions. If anyone can explain to me how we can slash the Welfare budget to 1948 levels without affecting the health care we all rely opun, without destroying pension provisions and without undermining education please do. In the light of the projected slashing of welfare state spending I fail to see the viability of the Hospital with or without the Allotment site. I also fail to see the significance of the EU debate given the fundamental changes implicit in Slashers cuts dontknowynot

4:42pm Tue 10 Dec 13

John Dowdle says...

See http://flipchartfair
ytales.wordpress.com
/2013/12/10/1948-a-d
ystopian-tale-by-geo
rge-o/ and http://lartsocial.or
g/OBRforecast for an interesting commentary on the probability of a 1948 state after the next general election.
See http://flipchartfair ytales.wordpress.com /2013/12/10/1948-a-d ystopian-tale-by-geo rge-o/ and http://lartsocial.or g/OBRforecast for an interesting commentary on the probability of a 1948 state after the next general election. John Dowdle

5:04pm Tue 10 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

John Dowdle wrote:
See http://flipchartfair

ytales.wordpress.com

/2013/12/10/1948-a-d

ystopian-tale-by-geo

rge-o/ and http://lartsocial.or

g/OBRforecast for an interesting commentary on the probability of a 1948 state after the next general election.
of course its laa la land fantasy BS it is however agenda setting to seriously assault the Welfare state
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: See http://flipchartfair ytales.wordpress.com /2013/12/10/1948-a-d ystopian-tale-by-geo rge-o/ and http://lartsocial.or g/OBRforecast for an interesting commentary on the probability of a 1948 state after the next general election.[/p][/quote]of course its laa la land fantasy BS it is however agenda setting to seriously assault the Welfare state dontknowynot

5:12pm Tue 10 Dec 13

LSC says...

"Oh a whole coven of UKIP devotees now.
I did give two examples but geography dictates they ignore one, never mind."

I'm not a UKIP devotee in the slghtest, but I happen to agree with some of their policies.
The reason I 'ignored' one geographical location was because I was talking about the other one, and different rules apply to each. Apples and oranges, and I was talking about the apples on this occasion.
People from other parts of the world generally have to prove they have something to offer; people from the EU can just walk in and take a seat, if they so wish.
This has an impact on the economy as I outlined earlier. HUGE amounts of cash are leaving this country, and if it wasn't, perhaps the benefit system could cope better.

It is all very well you threatening to scweam and scweam until you are sick because it is all SO UNFAIR! but where are your solutions? Ones that work I mean, not the magical thinking of opposition governments (of all types over history).

We are skint. Most of our neighbours and business partners are skint. We are quite obviously getting things wrong and have been for some years. China and Brazil are thriving economically wise, and most States in America have bigger turnovers than many whole countries in Europe.
This is why the EU debate relates. It isn't working, and that is partly why the NHS is up a creek.
"Oh a whole coven of UKIP devotees now. I did give two examples but geography dictates they ignore one, never mind." I'm not a UKIP devotee in the slghtest, but I happen to agree with some of their policies. The reason I 'ignored' one geographical location was because I was talking about the other one, and different rules apply to each. Apples and oranges, and I was talking about the apples on this occasion. People from other parts of the world generally have to prove they have something to offer; people from the EU can just walk in and take a seat, if they so wish. This has an impact on the economy as I outlined earlier. HUGE amounts of cash are leaving this country, and if it wasn't, perhaps the benefit system could cope better. It is all very well you threatening to scweam and scweam until you are sick because it is all SO UNFAIR! but where are your solutions? Ones that work I mean, not the magical thinking of opposition governments (of all types over history). We are skint. Most of our neighbours and business partners are skint. We are quite obviously getting things wrong and have been for some years. China and Brazil are thriving economically wise, and most States in America have bigger turnovers than many whole countries in Europe. This is why the EU debate relates. It isn't working, and that is partly why the NHS is up a creek. LSC

5:17pm Tue 10 Dec 13

John Dowdle says...

I think the main point of these articles is that they point either towards large cuts in welfare spending, large rises in taxes, or a combination of both but none of the political parties is admitting to this prior to a general election.
It was the same thing at the last general election, if you remember?
Then, the predictions of central government spending cuts after the 2010 election were substantially under-estimated.
Do we learn from history that we learn nothing from history?
I think the main point of these articles is that they point either towards large cuts in welfare spending, large rises in taxes, or a combination of both but none of the political parties is admitting to this prior to a general election. It was the same thing at the last general election, if you remember? Then, the predictions of central government spending cuts after the 2010 election were substantially under-estimated. Do we learn from history that we learn nothing from history? John Dowdle

5:43pm Tue 10 Dec 13

E.Coli says...

Cuetip wrote:
E.Coli wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good.

I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.
?
Try looking up lexis and it might lead exophoric references.
arh Vie govorite gluposti as they say in Romania
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E.Coli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good. I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.[/p][/quote]?[/p][/quote]Try looking up lexis and it might lead exophoric references.[/p][/quote]arh Vie govorite gluposti as they say in Romania E.Coli

6:09pm Tue 10 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

LSC wrote:
"Oh a whole coven of UKIP devotees now.
I did give two examples but geography dictates they ignore one, never mind."

I'm not a UKIP devotee in the slghtest, but I happen to agree with some of their policies.
The reason I 'ignored' one geographical location was because I was talking about the other one, and different rules apply to each. Apples and oranges, and I was talking about the apples on this occasion.
People from other parts of the world generally have to prove they have something to offer; people from the EU can just walk in and take a seat, if they so wish.
This has an impact on the economy as I outlined earlier. HUGE amounts of cash are leaving this country, and if it wasn't, perhaps the benefit system could cope better.

It is all very well you threatening to scweam and scweam until you are sick because it is all SO UNFAIR! but where are your solutions? Ones that work I mean, not the magical thinking of opposition governments (of all types over history).

We are skint. Most of our neighbours and business partners are skint. We are quite obviously getting things wrong and have been for some years. China and Brazil are thriving economically wise, and most States in America have bigger turnovers than many whole countries in Europe.
This is why the EU debate relates. It isn't working, and that is partly why the NHS is up a creek.
there are quite simply four answers
1) Tax, (and by that I mean tax people who have money) as an example from 1945 to mid 1970's our highest marginal rates of taxation were above 95%
2) debt write of as Example Germany in 1953 had the vast majority of its debt written of and large chunks deferred to reunification, however on reunification it then unilaterally write them off.
3) growth
4) a mixture of the above three.
With regard to apples and pears both were being harvested in the autumn however will not be in winter
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "Oh a whole coven of UKIP devotees now. I did give two examples but geography dictates they ignore one, never mind." I'm not a UKIP devotee in the slghtest, but I happen to agree with some of their policies. The reason I 'ignored' one geographical location was because I was talking about the other one, and different rules apply to each. Apples and oranges, and I was talking about the apples on this occasion. People from other parts of the world generally have to prove they have something to offer; people from the EU can just walk in and take a seat, if they so wish. This has an impact on the economy as I outlined earlier. HUGE amounts of cash are leaving this country, and if it wasn't, perhaps the benefit system could cope better. It is all very well you threatening to scweam and scweam until you are sick because it is all SO UNFAIR! but where are your solutions? Ones that work I mean, not the magical thinking of opposition governments (of all types over history). We are skint. Most of our neighbours and business partners are skint. We are quite obviously getting things wrong and have been for some years. China and Brazil are thriving economically wise, and most States in America have bigger turnovers than many whole countries in Europe. This is why the EU debate relates. It isn't working, and that is partly why the NHS is up a creek.[/p][/quote]there are quite simply four answers 1) Tax, (and by that I mean tax people who have money) as an example from 1945 to mid 1970's our highest marginal rates of taxation were above 95% 2) debt write of as Example Germany in 1953 had the vast majority of its debt written of and large chunks deferred to reunification, however on reunification it then unilaterally write them off. 3) growth 4) a mixture of the above three. With regard to apples and pears both were being harvested in the autumn however will not be in winter dontknowynot

6:42pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Cuetip says...

E.Coli wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
E.Coli wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good.

I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.
?
Try looking up lexis and it might lead exophoric references.
arh Vie govorite gluposti as they say in Romania
Nascot 6 says... 8:57am Tue 10 Dec 13
I have just started to dip my toes into commenting on here. But if Cuetip is an example of the intellectual level displayed on here I think I will stop wasting my time.

I would get more sense having a conversation with my goldfish.
How lovely but I’m not sure who is in the bowl when you two communicate.. Lol

Have got a view on out sourcing services in hospital?
[quote][p][bold]E.Coli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E.Coli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Modern day political rhetoric is all about masking the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good. I wonder if he is still watching The Likely Lads with this constant harping back to the past rather than embrace the future with some bold clear messages. Come on step forward into 2013 before it’s too late.[/p][/quote]?[/p][/quote]Try looking up lexis and it might lead exophoric references.[/p][/quote]arh Vie govorite gluposti as they say in Romania[/p][/quote]Nascot 6 says... 8:57am Tue 10 Dec 13 I have just started to dip my toes into commenting on here. But if Cuetip is an example of the intellectual level displayed on here I think I will stop wasting my time. I would get more sense having a conversation with my goldfish. How lovely but I’m not sure who is in the bowl when you two communicate.. Lol Have got a view on out sourcing services in hospital? Cuetip

6:50pm Tue 10 Dec 13

LSC says...

I'm not an economist, if I was I'd be richer than I am, but your argument only works on paper, not in the real world.
Tax the rich? How? The rich have the power. Clever accountants. Off shore accounts. Houses in Barbados to live in 9 months a year. In every human society, throughout history, it was ever thus. Communism was supposed to eliminate the wealthy class but I'd wager Lenin never used an outside lav after taking power. It just doesn't work unless the whole world joins in. Which they wont.

Writing off debt depends on who you owe the money to. The German debt was to France mainly, and they didn't so much need the money as simply want it. Our economy is different. You can't simply write our debts off, because we owe money to the very people propping up the economy in the first place. To quote the Goons, it would be a case of "You stand on my shoulders and pull me up". It doesn't work.

For growth, you need industry. You need to create, to make things other people want at a price they can afford. We don't, because all our big money goes abroad. Look at the car industry in this country. Even our water and power companies are mainly foreign owned. Any real success is reaped by another country. The big money is not going back into OUR economy, which is what you need for growth.
I'm not an economist, if I was I'd be richer than I am, but your argument only works on paper, not in the real world. Tax the rich? How? The rich have the power. Clever accountants. Off shore accounts. Houses in Barbados to live in 9 months a year. In every human society, throughout history, it was ever thus. Communism was supposed to eliminate the wealthy class but I'd wager Lenin never used an outside lav after taking power. It just doesn't work unless the whole world joins in. Which they wont. Writing off debt depends on who you owe the money to. The German debt was to France mainly, and they didn't so much need the money as simply want it. Our economy is different. You can't simply write our debts off, because we owe money to the very people propping up the economy in the first place. To quote the Goons, it would be a case of "You stand on my shoulders and pull me up". It doesn't work. For growth, you need industry. You need to create, to make things other people want at a price they can afford. We don't, because all our big money goes abroad. Look at the car industry in this country. Even our water and power companies are mainly foreign owned. Any real success is reaped by another country. The big money is not going back into OUR economy, which is what you need for growth. LSC

8:23pm Tue 10 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

LSC wrote:
I'm not an economist, if I was I'd be richer than I am, but your argument only works on paper, not in the real world.
Tax the rich? How? The rich have the power. Clever accountants. Off shore accounts. Houses in Barbados to live in 9 months a year. In every human society, throughout history, it was ever thus. Communism was supposed to eliminate the wealthy class but I'd wager Lenin never used an outside lav after taking power. It just doesn't work unless the whole world joins in. Which they wont.

Writing off debt depends on who you owe the money to. The German debt was to France mainly, and they didn't so much need the money as simply want it. Our economy is different. You can't simply write our debts off, because we owe money to the very people propping up the economy in the first place. To quote the Goons, it would be a case of "You stand on my shoulders and pull me up". It doesn't work.

For growth, you need industry. You need to create, to make things other people want at a price they can afford. We don't, because all our big money goes abroad. Look at the car industry in this country. Even our water and power companies are mainly foreign owned. Any real success is reaped by another country. The big money is not going back into OUR economy, which is what you need for growth.
Well I will take your word for it that you are not an Economist, so you are right on one thing. As to who were the major creditor that would be USA and then probably the Uk then France, ironically Greece was another having had its gold reserves plundered by Germany.
I am sorry for Labelling you as UKIP however seeing as you seem opposed to any form of taxing wealth or progressive income tax then clearly you are either a Tory or a Libdem> I merely set out the Logical alternatives. There is of course one other finding an natural resource to exploit, that is tax the earth, given that the front runner on this is Fracking I would hope to find another way. I do increasingly find it diffecult to tell the difference between the Orange book party, UKIP and The Tory party these days they do all seem to be fans of the tea Party and very right wing.
As to debt relief it worked in the 40’s and 50’s that and marshal aid rebuilt Europe, the whole concept was based on the work of Keynes who had previously walked out of the reparations conferences for WW1 due to the vindictive and counterproductive nature of them.
As an aside I do find the poo pooing of the concept of debt forgiving to be highly bizzare, it is what happens when people go bankrupt, is part of debt solutions for individuals thro IVA etc, has been used effectively in the US targeted at problem home loans and is being used in a targeted way in Iceland.
As for the goons we seem to have a right lot running the economy at the minute having killed of a recovery by slashing to early they now propose more slashing as the answer, it is not!
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I'm not an economist, if I was I'd be richer than I am, but your argument only works on paper, not in the real world. Tax the rich? How? The rich have the power. Clever accountants. Off shore accounts. Houses in Barbados to live in 9 months a year. In every human society, throughout history, it was ever thus. Communism was supposed to eliminate the wealthy class but I'd wager Lenin never used an outside lav after taking power. It just doesn't work unless the whole world joins in. Which they wont. Writing off debt depends on who you owe the money to. The German debt was to France mainly, and they didn't so much need the money as simply want it. Our economy is different. You can't simply write our debts off, because we owe money to the very people propping up the economy in the first place. To quote the Goons, it would be a case of "You stand on my shoulders and pull me up". It doesn't work. For growth, you need industry. You need to create, to make things other people want at a price they can afford. We don't, because all our big money goes abroad. Look at the car industry in this country. Even our water and power companies are mainly foreign owned. Any real success is reaped by another country. The big money is not going back into OUR economy, which is what you need for growth.[/p][/quote]Well I will take your word for it that you are not an Economist, so you are right on one thing. As to who were the major creditor that would be USA and then probably the Uk then France, ironically Greece was another having had its gold reserves plundered by Germany. I am sorry for Labelling you as UKIP however seeing as you seem opposed to any form of taxing wealth or progressive income tax then clearly you are either a Tory or a Libdem> I merely set out the Logical alternatives. There is of course one other finding an natural resource to exploit, that is tax the earth, given that the front runner on this is Fracking I would hope to find another way. I do increasingly find it diffecult to tell the difference between the Orange book party, UKIP and The Tory party these days they do all seem to be fans of the tea Party and very right wing. As to debt relief it worked in the 40’s and 50’s that and marshal aid rebuilt Europe, the whole concept was based on the work of Keynes who had previously walked out of the reparations conferences for WW1 due to the vindictive and counterproductive nature of them. As an aside I do find the poo pooing of the concept of debt forgiving to be highly bizzare, it is what happens when people go bankrupt, is part of debt solutions for individuals thro IVA etc, has been used effectively in the US targeted at problem home loans and is being used in a targeted way in Iceland. As for the goons we seem to have a right lot running the economy at the minute having killed of a recovery by slashing to early they now propose more slashing as the answer, it is not! dontknowynot

11:22pm Tue 10 Dec 13

LSC says...

I didn't say I was opposed to taxing the wealthy; I asked how. Big difference.
You seem obsessed with putting a label on people; I'm sorry I don't have one. I am just me and form my own opinions which cross all sorts of party lines.
After WW2 I think you will find we owed more money to the US than they demanded from Germany from the lend-lease programme, but staunch left wingers never seem to bother with facts when there is unworkable ideoligy to be spouted.
Quick history lesson (I don't charge for this) WW2 mainly started because of the demands of France after WW1. When it was seen they were doing it again, that is when the German debt was written off.

I find it bizarre you use Iceland as some sort of role model. The forgiving bankruptsy of their banks is one of the things that hit our country so hard; all the money we had invested was written off, and there are people right now without full pensions because of it.

Going bankrupt is not victimless as you seem to think. Somebody, somewhere, loses money. An individual or a whole country.

I don't have to be an economist to do the basic maths. The government, and the one before it, are spending more than they get. To make ends meet, they borrow, but the interest is crippling.
The ONLY solution is to spend less; that is not really up for discussion.
The question is how and where to spend less.
Some things this government are doing right, like looking at benefits, although perhaps going about it the wrong way.
Some things this government are doing wrong, like giving massive aid to India to help feed the poor while India itself is sending space probes to Mars and our space program now consists of balloons; despite the UK having a history of the greatest scientists and engineers in history.
I didn't say I was opposed to taxing the wealthy; I asked how. Big difference. You seem obsessed with putting a label on people; I'm sorry I don't have one. I am just me and form my own opinions which cross all sorts of party lines. After WW2 I think you will find we owed more money to the US than they demanded from Germany from the lend-lease programme, but staunch left wingers never seem to bother with facts when there is unworkable ideoligy to be spouted. Quick history lesson (I don't charge for this) WW2 mainly started because of the demands of France after WW1. When it was seen they were doing it again, that is when the German debt was written off. I find it bizarre you use Iceland as some sort of role model. The forgiving bankruptsy of their banks is one of the things that hit our country so hard; all the money we had invested was written off, and there are people right now without full pensions because of it. Going bankrupt is not victimless as you seem to think. Somebody, somewhere, loses money. An individual or a whole country. I don't have to be an economist to do the basic maths. The government, and the one before it, are spending more than they get. To make ends meet, they borrow, but the interest is crippling. The ONLY solution is to spend less; that is not really up for discussion. The question is how and where to spend less. Some things this government are doing right, like looking at benefits, although perhaps going about it the wrong way. Some things this government are doing wrong, like giving massive aid to India to help feed the poor while India itself is sending space probes to Mars and our space program now consists of balloons; despite the UK having a history of the greatest scientists and engineers in history. LSC

12:29am Wed 11 Dec 13

Aryldi says...

Andrew1963 wrote:
If the money wasted on the massive reorganisation of the NHS had not been spent by the coalition government, hospitals like Watford would not be teetering on the edge of bankrupcy. The Daily Telegraph reports the costs at more than £3 billion, and the Daily Mail says more than £430 million has been spent on redundancy packages with many of those made redundant re-employed to do the same work in a different part of the NHS ! Meanwhile Watford General has barely 2 days running costs in cash in its bank account, and is literally running out of money.
I abhor the waste of money in the NHS on restructuring and bribes, but you can't really condemn people that are made redundant from being reemployed in the same sector.

If an NHS secretary is made redundant, her skill sets are in secretarial and her sector is the NHS - of course that is where they will apply for and find alternative employment. Ditto nurses, managers, doctors, etc, etc. That's how the job market works.

Under Agenda For Change terms and conditions (unlike other work sectors), any redundancy settlement is only valid up to the point the person finds alternative employment within the NHS. - so, if someone with 5 months redundancy pay started a new job within the NHS 2 months after being made redundant, then they would only receive 2 months redundancy settlement, not the full 5 years. In the private sector, you get to keep any payout regardless.
[quote][p][bold]Andrew1963[/bold] wrote: If the money wasted on the massive reorganisation of the NHS had not been spent by the coalition government, hospitals like Watford would not be teetering on the edge of bankrupcy. The Daily Telegraph reports the costs at more than £3 billion, and the Daily Mail says more than £430 million has been spent on redundancy packages with many of those made redundant re-employed to do the same work in a different part of the NHS ! Meanwhile Watford General has barely 2 days running costs in cash in its bank account, and is literally running out of money.[/p][/quote]I abhor the waste of money in the NHS on restructuring and bribes, but you can't really condemn people that are made redundant from being reemployed in the same sector. If an NHS secretary is made redundant, her skill sets are in secretarial and her sector is the NHS - of course that is where they will apply for and find alternative employment. Ditto nurses, managers, doctors, etc, etc. That's how the job market works. Under Agenda For Change terms and conditions (unlike other work sectors), any redundancy settlement is only valid up to the point the person finds alternative employment within the NHS. - so, if someone with 5 months redundancy pay started a new job within the NHS 2 months after being made redundant, then they would only receive 2 months redundancy settlement, not the full 5 years. In the private sector, you get to keep any payout regardless. Aryldi

9:00am Wed 11 Dec 13

John Dowdle says...

dontknowynot wrote:
LSC wrote:
"Oh a whole coven of UKIP devotees now.
I did give two examples but geography dictates they ignore one, never mind."

I'm not a UKIP devotee in the slghtest, but I happen to agree with some of their policies.
The reason I 'ignored' one geographical location was because I was talking about the other one, and different rules apply to each. Apples and oranges, and I was talking about the apples on this occasion.
People from other parts of the world generally have to prove they have something to offer; people from the EU can just walk in and take a seat, if they so wish.
This has an impact on the economy as I outlined earlier. HUGE amounts of cash are leaving this country, and if it wasn't, perhaps the benefit system could cope better.

It is all very well you threatening to scweam and scweam until you are sick because it is all SO UNFAIR! but where are your solutions? Ones that work I mean, not the magical thinking of opposition governments (of all types over history).

We are skint. Most of our neighbours and business partners are skint. We are quite obviously getting things wrong and have been for some years. China and Brazil are thriving economically wise, and most States in America have bigger turnovers than many whole countries in Europe.
This is why the EU debate relates. It isn't working, and that is partly why the NHS is up a creek.
there are quite simply four answers
1) Tax, (and by that I mean tax people who have money) as an example from 1945 to mid 1970's our highest marginal rates of taxation were above 95%
2) debt write of as Example Germany in 1953 had the vast majority of its debt written of and large chunks deferred to reunification, however on reunification it then unilaterally write them off.
3) growth
4) a mixture of the above three.
With regard to apples and pears both were being harvested in the autumn however will not be in winter
I also think that Germany and Japan - as the main defeated nations of the Second World War - benefited greatly from having armies of occupation in their countries, which brought considerable capital inflows into their countries. I think we have only now reached the point where the British Army of the Rhine has finally withdrawn from Germany and the USA has also scaled down its presence in Japan. In both cases, the host countries have benefited enormously from massive amounts of foreign currency inflows into their economies at the expense of other countries such as the UK and USA.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "Oh a whole coven of UKIP devotees now. I did give two examples but geography dictates they ignore one, never mind." I'm not a UKIP devotee in the slghtest, but I happen to agree with some of their policies. The reason I 'ignored' one geographical location was because I was talking about the other one, and different rules apply to each. Apples and oranges, and I was talking about the apples on this occasion. People from other parts of the world generally have to prove they have something to offer; people from the EU can just walk in and take a seat, if they so wish. This has an impact on the economy as I outlined earlier. HUGE amounts of cash are leaving this country, and if it wasn't, perhaps the benefit system could cope better. It is all very well you threatening to scweam and scweam until you are sick because it is all SO UNFAIR! but where are your solutions? Ones that work I mean, not the magical thinking of opposition governments (of all types over history). We are skint. Most of our neighbours and business partners are skint. We are quite obviously getting things wrong and have been for some years. China and Brazil are thriving economically wise, and most States in America have bigger turnovers than many whole countries in Europe. This is why the EU debate relates. It isn't working, and that is partly why the NHS is up a creek.[/p][/quote]there are quite simply four answers 1) Tax, (and by that I mean tax people who have money) as an example from 1945 to mid 1970's our highest marginal rates of taxation were above 95% 2) debt write of as Example Germany in 1953 had the vast majority of its debt written of and large chunks deferred to reunification, however on reunification it then unilaterally write them off. 3) growth 4) a mixture of the above three. With regard to apples and pears both were being harvested in the autumn however will not be in winter[/p][/quote]I also think that Germany and Japan - as the main defeated nations of the Second World War - benefited greatly from having armies of occupation in their countries, which brought considerable capital inflows into their countries. I think we have only now reached the point where the British Army of the Rhine has finally withdrawn from Germany and the USA has also scaled down its presence in Japan. In both cases, the host countries have benefited enormously from massive amounts of foreign currency inflows into their economies at the expense of other countries such as the UK and USA. John Dowdle

10:07am Wed 11 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

@LSC
On this occasion I find you to be somewhat simplistic and even childlike in your interpretation and debate.
As an example you asked about alternatives to austerity, but in a manner that seemed antagonistic to the notion of alternatives; I pointed out a list of alternatives and gave examples.
On the subject of History specifaclly you cite back to me differences in WW1 and WW2 in very simplistic and somewhat inaccurate terms. I had already stated exactly the point you made in more detail and more accurately. The fact is that it was not as is implied by your answer some sort of act of divine revelation that the approach to reparations in WW1 was rubbish. It was not, it was directly attributable to the work and actions of Keynes who as I pointed out walked out of the WW1 negotiations, and who wrote the key economic text on how to pay for peace (starting with “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” 1919)
He did this before the fact of the historic developments that led to WW2 not afterwards and it was his work that was key to the WW2 settlement.
This could be qualified by stating that US experience of the great depression was also a major factor as was the experience of the USA in the inter wars years with the tripartite relationship however this would be nit picking as in a large part although there was a US school of economics out of which grow their own critique and policy the extent to which it confirmed Keynes theory’s means that the formulation of European reconstruction was Keynes work .
In regard to Austerity the withdrawal of support and expansionism too early in the US was another example of US developments confirming Keynes theory’s rather than adherence to them.
Your talk of UK repaying its debt is clearly a background to one of the examples I gave eg high marginal rates of tax, and whilst I acknowledge that yes in the modern world those rates are nonsense the point was that our historically low rates of higher tax are not inevitable they are a choice and there is ground between 40% and 95% that could be explored as could the idea of wealth tax.
The argument that is being put forward by the Gov is that of Welfare verses Austerity, I find that at present there are three party’s that want to cut welfare and one that does not, and that in this context Welfare is Education, Health, Social security and pensions, the three partys that would slash these three things are UKIP, LIBDEM and TORY the one that would seek not to is LABOUR.
So yes I will vote Labour in 2015, and will speak up for them.
@LSC On this occasion I find you to be somewhat simplistic and even childlike in your interpretation and debate. As an example you asked about alternatives to austerity, but in a manner that seemed antagonistic to the notion of alternatives; I pointed out a list of alternatives and gave examples. On the subject of History specifaclly you cite back to me differences in WW1 and WW2 in very simplistic and somewhat inaccurate terms. I had already stated exactly the point you made in more detail and more accurately. The fact is that it was not as is implied by your answer some sort of act of divine revelation that the approach to reparations in WW1 was rubbish. It was not, it was directly attributable to the work and actions of Keynes who as I pointed out walked out of the WW1 negotiations, and who wrote the key economic text on how to pay for peace (starting with “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” 1919) He did this before the fact of the historic developments that led to WW2 not afterwards and it was his work that was key to the WW2 settlement. This could be qualified by stating that US experience of the great depression was also a major factor as was the experience of the USA in the inter wars years with the tripartite relationship however this would be nit picking as in a large part although there was a US school of economics out of which grow their own critique and policy the extent to which it confirmed Keynes theory’s means that the formulation of European reconstruction was Keynes work . In regard to Austerity the withdrawal of support and expansionism too early in the US was another example of US developments confirming Keynes theory’s rather than adherence to them. Your talk of UK repaying its debt is clearly a background to one of the examples I gave eg high marginal rates of tax, and whilst I acknowledge that yes in the modern world those rates are nonsense the point was that our historically low rates of higher tax are not inevitable they are a choice and there is ground between 40% and 95% that could be explored as could the idea of wealth tax. The argument that is being put forward by the Gov is that of Welfare verses Austerity, I find that at present there are three party’s that want to cut welfare and one that does not, and that in this context Welfare is Education, Health, Social security and pensions, the three partys that would slash these three things are UKIP, LIBDEM and TORY the one that would seek not to is LABOUR. So yes I will vote Labour in 2015, and will speak up for them. dontknowynot

10:31am Wed 11 Dec 13

John Dowdle says...

It might be the case that I might be persuaded by the advocates of austerity if I saw the current government not wasting - or 'impairing' huge sums of public money, such as the DWP writing off £40 million on its bungled attempt to introduce a new computerized welfare system and paying double or even treble the original estimates on constructing aircraft carriers for which there are no planes.
The idea of spending £60 billion on a continuing nuclear weapons system that we will never use is also idiotic to my mind.
We have no idea as to the amounts being spent by snooping bodies like GCHQ on the so-called "war on terror" and the amounts being spent on the so-called "war on drugs" which has led to record levels of poppy cultivation in places like Afghanistan, which are also equally absurd.
Ultimately, it is a matter of political will as to what kind of society we all want to live in. If we had heeded calls for austerity after 1945 we would now have a welfare state system in this country.
A recent analysis has suggested scaling back expenditure to 1948 levels; that is the full implication of George Osborne's Autumn Statement. Iyt is up to all of us to decide if we want a country with a 1948 welfare system or one that is more appropriate to the world of the 21st Century.
To return back to the original topic, do we want a local hospital service which goes beyond just Watford and includes all of West Hertfordshire which is fit for the 21st Century or are we all going to acquiesce by accepting far lower standards of care? I know where I stand on this issue - for higher standards of care for all - but where do each of the main political parties actually themselves stand on the issue?
It might be the case that I might be persuaded by the advocates of austerity if I saw the current government not wasting - or 'impairing' huge sums of public money, such as the DWP writing off £40 million on its bungled attempt to introduce a new computerized welfare system and paying double or even treble the original estimates on constructing aircraft carriers for which there are no planes. The idea of spending £60 billion on a continuing nuclear weapons system that we will never use is also idiotic to my mind. We have no idea as to the amounts being spent by snooping bodies like GCHQ on the so-called "war on terror" and the amounts being spent on the so-called "war on drugs" which has led to record levels of poppy cultivation in places like Afghanistan, which are also equally absurd. Ultimately, it is a matter of political will as to what kind of society we all want to live in. If we had heeded calls for austerity after 1945 we would now have a welfare state system in this country. A recent analysis has suggested scaling back expenditure to 1948 levels; that is the full implication of George Osborne's Autumn Statement. Iyt is up to all of us to decide if we want a country with a 1948 welfare system or one that is more appropriate to the world of the 21st Century. To return back to the original topic, do we want a local hospital service which goes beyond just Watford and includes all of West Hertfordshire which is fit for the 21st Century or are we all going to acquiesce by accepting far lower standards of care? I know where I stand on this issue - for higher standards of care for all - but where do each of the main political parties actually themselves stand on the issue? John Dowdle

10:35am Wed 11 Dec 13

John Dowdle says...

Correction: where I wrote ' If we had heeded calls for austerity after 1945 we would now have a welfare state system in this country.' above, I inadvertently left out a key word, i.e. 'not', so that it should read ' If we had heeded calls for austerity after 1945 we would not now have a welfare state system in this country.'.
Correction: where I wrote ' If we had heeded calls for austerity after 1945 we would now have a welfare state system in this country.' above, I inadvertently left out a key word, i.e. 'not', so that it should read ' If we had heeded calls for austerity after 1945 we would not now have a welfare state system in this country.'. John Dowdle

10:52am Wed 11 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

You could of course look at things from a different perspective.

Instead of talking about 1948 levels (whatever they were) you could look at what needs doing, what we should be doing and what we as a country can afford to do.

The country should cut back on non-essential expenditure as far as possible. I would include in these cuts Foreign Aid and the EU.

I would then look at all the other things government does and evaluate what we should be doing. As a matter of principle the state needs to be lean and effective to keep taxes as low as possible.

High-taxing governments are often wasteful governments run by idiots.
You could of course look at things from a different perspective. Instead of talking about 1948 levels (whatever they were) you could look at what needs doing, what we should be doing and what we as a country can afford to do. The country should cut back on non-essential expenditure as far as possible. I would include in these cuts Foreign Aid and the EU. I would then look at all the other things government does and evaluate what we should be doing. As a matter of principle the state needs to be lean and effective to keep taxes as low as possible. High-taxing governments are often wasteful governments run by idiots. Phil Cox (UKIP)

2:02pm Wed 11 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
You could of course look at things from a different perspective.

Instead of talking about 1948 levels (whatever they were) you could look at what needs doing, what we should be doing and what we as a country can afford to do.

The country should cut back on non-essential expenditure as far as possible. I would include in these cuts Foreign Aid and the EU.

I would then look at all the other things government does and evaluate what we should be doing. As a matter of principle the state needs to be lean and effective to keep taxes as low as possible.

High-taxing governments are often wasteful governments run by idiots.
point proven re UKIP they want to slash Welfare that is they want to slash spending on Education/Health/pen
sions and social security. In that they are no different than the Libdems and Torys.
Labour is the only party with any commitment to the welfare state, unlike say Germany where all partys maintain Welfare state spending far higher than the UK.
Labour may not articulate their commetment to the welfare state (Education/Health/pe
nsions and social security) much but it is in their soul, just like it is in the soul of the Libdem party, the difference being that although Blair berried it deep he didn't sell it like The LIBDEM party of Clegg. Yes sell out Clegg sold the soul of the Libdem party for the illusion of power.

This leaves a clear choice in 2015 Labour or the Anti EU Tory party (ukip), the pro EU tory party (libdem) or the can't make its mind up on EU Tory Party (conservatives) In essence they are all the same apart from one non issue
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: You could of course look at things from a different perspective. Instead of talking about 1948 levels (whatever they were) you could look at what needs doing, what we should be doing and what we as a country can afford to do. The country should cut back on non-essential expenditure as far as possible. I would include in these cuts Foreign Aid and the EU. I would then look at all the other things government does and evaluate what we should be doing. As a matter of principle the state needs to be lean and effective to keep taxes as low as possible. High-taxing governments are often wasteful governments run by idiots.[/p][/quote]point proven re UKIP they want to slash Welfare that is they want to slash spending on Education/Health/pen sions and social security. In that they are no different than the Libdems and Torys. Labour is the only party with any commitment to the welfare state, unlike say Germany where all partys maintain Welfare state spending far higher than the UK. Labour may not articulate their commetment to the welfare state (Education/Health/pe nsions and social security) much but it is in their soul, just like it is in the soul of the Libdem party, the difference being that although Blair berried it deep he didn't sell it like The LIBDEM party of Clegg. Yes sell out Clegg sold the soul of the Libdem party for the illusion of power. This leaves a clear choice in 2015 Labour or the Anti EU Tory party (ukip), the pro EU tory party (libdem) or the can't make its mind up on EU Tory Party (conservatives) In essence they are all the same apart from one non issue dontknowynot

3:34pm Wed 11 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

BTW LSC I think you are again wrong on the lend lease debt versus Marshal aid which outstripped lend lease funding at a ratio of about 3:1
That is Marshal aid on its own not including the 1953 write of of German external debt
BTW LSC I think you are again wrong on the lend lease debt versus Marshal aid which outstripped lend lease funding at a ratio of about 3:1 That is Marshal aid on its own not including the 1953 write of of German external debt dontknowynot

5:48pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

What a jumbled load of old codswallop from Labour, no wonder they are losing members left right and centre.

All Labour are committed to is gaining power for powers sake, high taxes and a bloated state, matched only by their incompetence when they are in power.

Does the Labour party even have a soul anymore? I thought it privatised it years ago.

Labour of 2013 is not the Labour party of old, the party of the people. Now itis just the party of the people at the top, the Millibands and all the other politicians who have never done a real job in their lives.
What a jumbled load of old codswallop from Labour, no wonder they are losing members left right and centre. All Labour are committed to is gaining power for powers sake, high taxes and a bloated state, matched only by their incompetence when they are in power. Does the Labour party even have a soul anymore? I thought it privatised it years ago. Labour of 2013 is not the Labour party of old, the party of the people. Now itis just the party of the people at the top, the Millibands and all the other politicians who have never done a real job in their lives. Phil Cox (UKIP)

8:56pm Wed 11 Dec 13

LSC says...

dontknowynot wrote:
BTW LSC I think you are again wrong on the lend lease debt versus Marshal aid which outstripped lend lease funding at a ratio of about 3:1
That is Marshal aid on its own not including the 1953 write of of German external debt
The German debt to the USA was called quits in 1953. We finished paying the USA in 2006. We might not have owed more to start with, but we certainly paid more.
So my statement stands: "we owed more money to the US than they demanded from Germany". Note I used the word 'demanded' for Germany, not 'owed'.

Most of the Marshall Aid to Germany was in the form of grants, and the loan parts were repaid by 1971, and at the same time the UK received 385 million USD of its Marshall plan aid in the form of loans which again finished in 2006.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: BTW LSC I think you are again wrong on the lend lease debt versus Marshal aid which outstripped lend lease funding at a ratio of about 3:1 That is Marshal aid on its own not including the 1953 write of of German external debt[/p][/quote]The German debt to the USA was called quits in 1953. We finished paying the USA in 2006. We might not have owed more to start with, but we certainly paid more. So my statement stands: "we owed more money to the US than they demanded from Germany". Note I used the word 'demanded' for Germany, not 'owed'. Most of the Marshall Aid to Germany was in the form of grants, and the loan parts were repaid by 1971, and at the same time the UK received 385 million USD of its Marshall plan aid in the form of loans which again finished in 2006. LSC

10:00pm Wed 11 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

LSC wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
BTW LSC I think you are again wrong on the lend lease debt versus Marshal aid which outstripped lend lease funding at a ratio of about 3:1
That is Marshal aid on its own not including the 1953 write of of German external debt
The German debt to the USA was called quits in 1953. We finished paying the USA in 2006. We might not have owed more to start with, but we certainly paid more.
So my statement stands: "we owed more money to the US than they demanded from Germany". Note I used the word 'demanded' for Germany, not 'owed'.

Most of the Marshall Aid to Germany was in the form of grants, and the loan parts were repaid by 1971, and at the same time the UK received 385 million USD of its Marshall plan aid in the form of loans which again finished in 2006.
wrong we paid at 2% even our perp bonds from ww1 are about 3.5% if ever there was a bargain lend this was it!!!

I note that you are again being simplistic and childlike misleading and not accurate, the lend lease arrangement was 1941 post war reconstruction was addressed by the Marshal plan and the 1953 debt confrence dealt with German external debt, on top of this Germany were gifted a new currency the DM.

You are wrong in what you say here LSC and would be well advised to stop digging.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: BTW LSC I think you are again wrong on the lend lease debt versus Marshal aid which outstripped lend lease funding at a ratio of about 3:1 That is Marshal aid on its own not including the 1953 write of of German external debt[/p][/quote]The German debt to the USA was called quits in 1953. We finished paying the USA in 2006. We might not have owed more to start with, but we certainly paid more. So my statement stands: "we owed more money to the US than they demanded from Germany". Note I used the word 'demanded' for Germany, not 'owed'. Most of the Marshall Aid to Germany was in the form of grants, and the loan parts were repaid by 1971, and at the same time the UK received 385 million USD of its Marshall plan aid in the form of loans which again finished in 2006.[/p][/quote]wrong we paid at 2% even our perp bonds from ww1 are about 3.5% if ever there was a bargain lend this was it!!! I note that you are again being simplistic and childlike misleading and not accurate, the lend lease arrangement was 1941 post war reconstruction was addressed by the Marshal plan and the 1953 debt confrence dealt with German external debt, on top of this Germany were gifted a new currency the DM. You are wrong in what you say here LSC and would be well advised to stop digging. dontknowynot

10:02pm Wed 11 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
What a jumbled load of old codswallop from Labour, no wonder they are losing members left right and centre.

All Labour are committed to is gaining power for powers sake, high taxes and a bloated state, matched only by their incompetence when they are in power.

Does the Labour party even have a soul anymore? I thought it privatised it years ago.

Labour of 2013 is not the Labour party of old, the party of the people. Now itis just the party of the people at the top, the Millibands and all the other politicians who have never done a real job in their lives.
point proven you are just an anti welfare small state Tory party that is opposed to being in the EU
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: What a jumbled load of old codswallop from Labour, no wonder they are losing members left right and centre. All Labour are committed to is gaining power for powers sake, high taxes and a bloated state, matched only by their incompetence when they are in power. Does the Labour party even have a soul anymore? I thought it privatised it years ago. Labour of 2013 is not the Labour party of old, the party of the people. Now itis just the party of the people at the top, the Millibands and all the other politicians who have never done a real job in their lives.[/p][/quote]point proven you are just an anti welfare small state Tory party that is opposed to being in the EU dontknowynot

10:22pm Wed 11 Dec 13

LSC says...

dontknowynot wrote:
LSC wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
BTW LSC I think you are again wrong on the lend lease debt versus Marshal aid which outstripped lend lease funding at a ratio of about 3:1
That is Marshal aid on its own not including the 1953 write of of German external debt
The German debt to the USA was called quits in 1953. We finished paying the USA in 2006. We might not have owed more to start with, but we certainly paid more.
So my statement stands: "we owed more money to the US than they demanded from Germany". Note I used the word 'demanded' for Germany, not 'owed'.

Most of the Marshall Aid to Germany was in the form of grants, and the loan parts were repaid by 1971, and at the same time the UK received 385 million USD of its Marshall plan aid in the form of loans which again finished in 2006.
wrong we paid at 2% even our perp bonds from ww1 are about 3.5% if ever there was a bargain lend this was it!!!

I note that you are again being simplistic and childlike misleading and not accurate, the lend lease arrangement was 1941 post war reconstruction was addressed by the Marshal plan and the 1953 debt confrence dealt with German external debt, on top of this Germany were gifted a new currency the DM.

You are wrong in what you say here LSC and would be well advised to stop digging.
Ah, back to the insults, which make any point you make instantly moot.

As to 'well advised', by whom? You? Who do think you are, the cat's mother?

You are inaccurate, inarticulate, condescending and insulting; I know that much, so perhaps I'd be best advised to simply ignore everything you say from now on, much like I do the Labour party in general.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: BTW LSC I think you are again wrong on the lend lease debt versus Marshal aid which outstripped lend lease funding at a ratio of about 3:1 That is Marshal aid on its own not including the 1953 write of of German external debt[/p][/quote]The German debt to the USA was called quits in 1953. We finished paying the USA in 2006. We might not have owed more to start with, but we certainly paid more. So my statement stands: "we owed more money to the US than they demanded from Germany". Note I used the word 'demanded' for Germany, not 'owed'. Most of the Marshall Aid to Germany was in the form of grants, and the loan parts were repaid by 1971, and at the same time the UK received 385 million USD of its Marshall plan aid in the form of loans which again finished in 2006.[/p][/quote]wrong we paid at 2% even our perp bonds from ww1 are about 3.5% if ever there was a bargain lend this was it!!! I note that you are again being simplistic and childlike misleading and not accurate, the lend lease arrangement was 1941 post war reconstruction was addressed by the Marshal plan and the 1953 debt confrence dealt with German external debt, on top of this Germany were gifted a new currency the DM. You are wrong in what you say here LSC and would be well advised to stop digging.[/p][/quote]Ah, back to the insults, which make any point you make instantly moot. As to 'well advised', by whom? You? Who do think you are, the cat's mother? You are inaccurate, inarticulate, condescending and insulting; I know that much, so perhaps I'd be best advised to simply ignore everything you say from now on, much like I do the Labour party in general. LSC

10:35pm Wed 11 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

LSC wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
LSC wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
BTW LSC I think you are again wrong on the lend lease debt versus Marshal aid which outstripped lend lease funding at a ratio of about 3:1
That is Marshal aid on its own not including the 1953 write of of German external debt
The German debt to the USA was called quits in 1953. We finished paying the USA in 2006. We might not have owed more to start with, but we certainly paid more.
So my statement stands: "we owed more money to the US than they demanded from Germany". Note I used the word 'demanded' for Germany, not 'owed'.

Most of the Marshall Aid to Germany was in the form of grants, and the loan parts were repaid by 1971, and at the same time the UK received 385 million USD of its Marshall plan aid in the form of loans which again finished in 2006.
wrong we paid at 2% even our perp bonds from ww1 are about 3.5% if ever there was a bargain lend this was it!!!

I note that you are again being simplistic and childlike misleading and not accurate, the lend lease arrangement was 1941 post war reconstruction was addressed by the Marshal plan and the 1953 debt confrence dealt with German external debt, on top of this Germany were gifted a new currency the DM.

You are wrong in what you say here LSC and would be well advised to stop digging.
Ah, back to the insults, which make any point you make instantly moot.

As to 'well advised', by whom? You? Who do think you are, the cat's mother?

You are inaccurate, inarticulate, condescending and insulting; I know that much, so perhaps I'd be best advised to simply ignore everything you say from now on, much like I do the Labour party in general.
BTW I have purposefully not been insulting to you, that is I have stated that on this occasion ..... and qualified what I said! It is you who have resorted to insults saying that I am such and such.
As for your ignoring the Labour party well that is non of my concern, I maintain that you are wrong here and on the substantive issue of post war reconstruction validating the economics of Keynes versus Austerity, Keynes wins.
Also that on the other issues of substance around taxation historic taxation and debt you have failed to give anything apart from bluster.
Furthermore your historical lessons seem to have very little substance to them.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: BTW LSC I think you are again wrong on the lend lease debt versus Marshal aid which outstripped lend lease funding at a ratio of about 3:1 That is Marshal aid on its own not including the 1953 write of of German external debt[/p][/quote]The German debt to the USA was called quits in 1953. We finished paying the USA in 2006. We might not have owed more to start with, but we certainly paid more. So my statement stands: "we owed more money to the US than they demanded from Germany". Note I used the word 'demanded' for Germany, not 'owed'. Most of the Marshall Aid to Germany was in the form of grants, and the loan parts were repaid by 1971, and at the same time the UK received 385 million USD of its Marshall plan aid in the form of loans which again finished in 2006.[/p][/quote]wrong we paid at 2% even our perp bonds from ww1 are about 3.5% if ever there was a bargain lend this was it!!! I note that you are again being simplistic and childlike misleading and not accurate, the lend lease arrangement was 1941 post war reconstruction was addressed by the Marshal plan and the 1953 debt confrence dealt with German external debt, on top of this Germany were gifted a new currency the DM. You are wrong in what you say here LSC and would be well advised to stop digging.[/p][/quote]Ah, back to the insults, which make any point you make instantly moot. As to 'well advised', by whom? You? Who do think you are, the cat's mother? You are inaccurate, inarticulate, condescending and insulting; I know that much, so perhaps I'd be best advised to simply ignore everything you say from now on, much like I do the Labour party in general.[/p][/quote]BTW I have purposefully not been insulting to you, that is I have stated that on this occasion ..... and qualified what I said! It is you who have resorted to insults saying that I am such and such. As for your ignoring the Labour party well that is non of my concern, I maintain that you are wrong here and on the substantive issue of post war reconstruction validating the economics of Keynes versus Austerity, Keynes wins. Also that on the other issues of substance around taxation historic taxation and debt you have failed to give anything apart from bluster. Furthermore your historical lessons seem to have very little substance to them. dontknowynot

11:02pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: What a jumbled load of old codswallop from Labour, no wonder they are losing members left right and centre. All Labour are committed to is gaining power for powers sake, high taxes and a bloated state, matched only by their incompetence when they are in power. Does the Labour party even have a soul anymore? I thought it privatised it years ago. Labour of 2013 is not the Labour party of old, the party of the people. Now itis just the party of the people at the top, the Millibands and all the other politicians who have never done a real job in their lives.
point proven you are just an anti welfare small state Tory party that is opposed to being in the EU
You're right on a couple of things, have you been reading the UKIP website?

We in UKIP are opposed to being in the EU - the clue is in the name UKIP. A Common market would be ok, but EU? No thanks.

We are for a small but effective well-run state. The state should do what it has to do and do it well, but it should also strive to leave as much money in the pockets of those who earn it as possible by keeping taxes as low as possible. Surely that's a good thing? This is probably the opposite of your beliefs (largest state possible, inefficiently run, throwing money into bottomless pits, highest taxes possible.)

The welfare state is in my opinion a good thing and I fail to see how this country could operate without it if it were closed, so the welfare system will not be dropped - that is just Labour scaremongering. It's a shame it is being abused and something needs to be done about that. Leaving the EU would allow us to make our own rules to stop these abuses, but at the moment the EU paralyses us in certain respects from stopping some of the more blatant abuses.

It is important we in UKIP offer a choice to people who have, rightly, lost faith in politicians, particularly as the only choice used to be Labour or Tory. That's why we have UKIP as the third major party of british politics.

What's more, we are growing, both locally and nationally. The future is bright and it's not just red or blue anymore, it's also purple.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: What a jumbled load of old codswallop from Labour, no wonder they are losing members left right and centre. All Labour are committed to is gaining power for powers sake, high taxes and a bloated state, matched only by their incompetence when they are in power. Does the Labour party even have a soul anymore? I thought it privatised it years ago. Labour of 2013 is not the Labour party of old, the party of the people. Now itis just the party of the people at the top, the Millibands and all the other politicians who have never done a real job in their lives.[/p][/quote]point proven you are just an anti welfare small state Tory party that is opposed to being in the EU[/p][/quote]You're right on a couple of things, have you been reading the UKIP website? We in UKIP are opposed to being in the EU - the clue is in the name UKIP. A Common market would be ok, but EU? No thanks. We are for a small but effective well-run state. The state should do what it has to do and do it well, but it should also strive to leave as much money in the pockets of those who earn it as possible by keeping taxes as low as possible. Surely that's a good thing? This is probably the opposite of your beliefs (largest state possible, inefficiently run, throwing money into bottomless pits, highest taxes possible.) The welfare state is in my opinion a good thing and I fail to see how this country could operate without it if it were closed, so the welfare system will not be dropped - that is just Labour scaremongering. It's a shame it is being abused and something needs to be done about that. Leaving the EU would allow us to make our own rules to stop these abuses, but at the moment the EU paralyses us in certain respects from stopping some of the more blatant abuses. It is important we in UKIP offer a choice to people who have, rightly, lost faith in politicians, particularly as the only choice used to be Labour or Tory. That's why we have UKIP as the third major party of british politics. What's more, we are growing, both locally and nationally. The future is bright and it's not just red or blue anymore, it's also purple. Phil Cox (UKIP)

11:45pm Wed 11 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: What a jumbled load of old codswallop from Labour, no wonder they are losing members left right and centre. All Labour are committed to is gaining power for powers sake, high taxes and a bloated state, matched only by their incompetence when they are in power. Does the Labour party even have a soul anymore? I thought it privatised it years ago. Labour of 2013 is not the Labour party of old, the party of the people. Now itis just the party of the people at the top, the Millibands and all the other politicians who have never done a real job in their lives.
point proven you are just an anti welfare small state Tory party that is opposed to being in the EU
You're right on a couple of things, have you been reading the UKIP website?

We in UKIP are opposed to being in the EU - the clue is in the name UKIP. A Common market would be ok, but EU? No thanks.

We are for a small but effective well-run state. The state should do what it has to do and do it well, but it should also strive to leave as much money in the pockets of those who earn it as possible by keeping taxes as low as possible. Surely that's a good thing? This is probably the opposite of your beliefs (largest state possible, inefficiently run, throwing money into bottomless pits, highest taxes possible.)

The welfare state is in my opinion a good thing and I fail to see how this country could operate without it if it were closed, so the welfare system will not be dropped - that is just Labour scaremongering. It's a shame it is being abused and something needs to be done about that. Leaving the EU would allow us to make our own rules to stop these abuses, but at the moment the EU paralyses us in certain respects from stopping some of the more blatant abuses.

It is important we in UKIP offer a choice to people who have, rightly, lost faith in politicians, particularly as the only choice used to be Labour or Tory. That's why we have UKIP as the third major party of british politics.

What's more, we are growing, both locally and nationally. The future is bright and it's not just red or blue anymore, it's also purple.
I read all sorts.

But lets face it your party is a Tory party it is born of it molded by it even...
On education on NHS, on economic policy on everything it is Tory. The problem with this is that it is everything I disagree with.
When UKIP/Tory/libdem go on about small state/ privatisation/ economic liberalisem you are all singing from the same flawed Tory hyme sheet just with different Jargon.The only difference is as stated stance on Europe and this is a non issue

please just follow my reasoning here before dismissing it, I know that you will not agree but just look at the logic and reasoning for a minute. I will liken it to Scotland, in Scotland not that long ago there was a SNP landslide victory, yet now it looks like they will vote against independence. Like UKIp the SNP is very clear in what it stands for and has a message that has proven popular yet they will loss the vote on independence. their message has a very romantic notion attached to it of an independent Scotland, it is very pop, but pragmatically they will loss to the grey "better together" message. The same will happen here the romantic notion of independance is the appeal yes there are logical arguments that you can put forward re welfare abuse or cost or immigration that are not entirely without any merit, but this is also the case in Scotland with north sea oil or wind power or something, but these are peripheral to the major issue of "better together" and pragmatically they will accept and vote for the Union warts an all as will the UK re EU.
As such any party standing on the basis of an EU referendum is standing on a non issue if it happens the vote will be to stay in.
As regard to leaving EU the only ways it will happen is if the EU ceases to be or if a party stands and gets elected on the basis of leaving without a referendum. Although at present both of these possabiltys seem remote the last Global financial crises almost tore the EU apart and in 1983 the Labour party policy was to leave without a referendum, I note her that had it not been for deft political timing and the Falklands War Labour may well of won an election in 84
Moving back to welfare it is Pensions/health/soci
al security/education/c
hild allowance and it is the focus on one part of a small part of this that is distasteful inaccurate and misleading, the truth is in order to large scale savings it is inevitable that pensions health education and support for the disabled will be affected, and if you look at what is actually happening you will see that yes they are being affected.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: What a jumbled load of old codswallop from Labour, no wonder they are losing members left right and centre. All Labour are committed to is gaining power for powers sake, high taxes and a bloated state, matched only by their incompetence when they are in power. Does the Labour party even have a soul anymore? I thought it privatised it years ago. Labour of 2013 is not the Labour party of old, the party of the people. Now itis just the party of the people at the top, the Millibands and all the other politicians who have never done a real job in their lives.[/p][/quote]point proven you are just an anti welfare small state Tory party that is opposed to being in the EU[/p][/quote]You're right on a couple of things, have you been reading the UKIP website? We in UKIP are opposed to being in the EU - the clue is in the name UKIP. A Common market would be ok, but EU? No thanks. We are for a small but effective well-run state. The state should do what it has to do and do it well, but it should also strive to leave as much money in the pockets of those who earn it as possible by keeping taxes as low as possible. Surely that's a good thing? This is probably the opposite of your beliefs (largest state possible, inefficiently run, throwing money into bottomless pits, highest taxes possible.) The welfare state is in my opinion a good thing and I fail to see how this country could operate without it if it were closed, so the welfare system will not be dropped - that is just Labour scaremongering. It's a shame it is being abused and something needs to be done about that. Leaving the EU would allow us to make our own rules to stop these abuses, but at the moment the EU paralyses us in certain respects from stopping some of the more blatant abuses. It is important we in UKIP offer a choice to people who have, rightly, lost faith in politicians, particularly as the only choice used to be Labour or Tory. That's why we have UKIP as the third major party of british politics. What's more, we are growing, both locally and nationally. The future is bright and it's not just red or blue anymore, it's also purple.[/p][/quote]I read all sorts. But lets face it your party is a Tory party it is born of it molded by it even... On education on NHS, on economic policy on everything it is Tory. The problem with this is that it is everything I disagree with. When UKIP/Tory/libdem go on about small state/ privatisation/ economic liberalisem you are all singing from the same flawed Tory hyme sheet just with different Jargon.The only difference is as stated stance on Europe and this is a non issue please just follow my reasoning here before dismissing it, I know that you will not agree but just look at the logic and reasoning for a minute. I will liken it to Scotland, in Scotland not that long ago there was a SNP landslide victory, yet now it looks like they will vote against independence. Like UKIp the SNP is very clear in what it stands for and has a message that has proven popular yet they will loss the vote on independence. their message has a very romantic notion attached to it of an independent Scotland, it is very pop, but pragmatically they will loss to the grey "better together" message. The same will happen here the romantic notion of independance is the appeal yes there are logical arguments that you can put forward re welfare abuse or cost or immigration that are not entirely without any merit, but this is also the case in Scotland with north sea oil or wind power or something, but these are peripheral to the major issue of "better together" and pragmatically they will accept and vote for the Union warts an all as will the UK re EU. As such any party standing on the basis of an EU referendum is standing on a non issue if it happens the vote will be to stay in. As regard to leaving EU the only ways it will happen is if the EU ceases to be or if a party stands and gets elected on the basis of leaving without a referendum. Although at present both of these possabiltys seem remote the last Global financial crises almost tore the EU apart and in 1983 the Labour party policy was to leave without a referendum, I note her that had it not been for deft political timing and the Falklands War Labour may well of won an election in 84 Moving back to welfare it is Pensions/health/soci al security/education/c hild allowance and it is the focus on one part of a small part of this that is distasteful inaccurate and misleading, the truth is in order to large scale savings it is inevitable that pensions health education and support for the disabled will be affected, and if you look at what is actually happening you will see that yes they are being affected. dontknowynot

12:49am Thu 12 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Let's assume you are correct, UKIP is a Tory party in all but name.

Why then are so many ex-Labour and ex-LibDem supporters flocking to join, support and vote for UKIP? That wouldn't make sense. would it?

I think you will find that particular "Tory" slur very hard to sell to anyone, mainly because it is not true. We share some of their current values, and disagree with others.

You do realise don't you that in describing the EU as a non-issue you are in a minority as there is between 52-87% who want a referendum on the EU? Why is your party so out of touch? It's not going to go away, you know.

In fact, the electorate are probably wondering why the supposed "peoples party" has no intention of doing something for the people that they have clearly expressed a wish for. Oh, I know. It's because Red Ed and his party know best. Is that it? Or is it as you say, you already know the results so why bother asking in the first place? At least I understand where you are coming from there.

In the past the EU and their managers in each country (we used to call them governments) will ignore the results if it is to leave the EU and offer further votes until "the right answer is given". Yes, quite worrying, isn't it, particularly if you can remember what democracy used to look like before the EU took over.

As for your comments about benefits, NHS and education, UKIP are committed to all of them. If it is in the country's interests to have them, then we will have them. And it is in this countrys interests to have all of those things.

When I was younger, Labour spent too much on everything and left office leaving behind a financial mess and then the Tories cut everything back too much, and so the pendulum swung between the two parties of government once one party "had gone too far".

Now there is UKIP with a different appraoach. To work out what is needed for everybody, not just one slice of society or the other, but for everyone and doing what would widely be considered to be "the right thing". If enough people disagreed with any policy we would hold a referendum to get a popular mandate - wow, imagine that, a referendum if people didn't like what we were doing - how refreshing! You see, we might have lots of ideas, but we are not so arrogant as to suppose that just because we got elected we could do as we demn well please for 5 years.

So far, this idea is attracting a lot of voters so we must be doing something right.

UKIP, a choice for the future, and a better future at that!
Let's assume you are correct, UKIP is a Tory party in all but name. Why then are so many ex-Labour and ex-LibDem supporters flocking to join, support and vote for UKIP? That wouldn't make sense. would it? I think you will find that particular "Tory" slur very hard to sell to anyone, mainly because it is not true. We share some of their current values, and disagree with others. You do realise don't you that in describing the EU as a non-issue you are in a minority as there is between 52-87% who want a referendum on the EU? Why is your party so out of touch? It's not going to go away, you know. In fact, the electorate are probably wondering why the supposed "peoples party" has no intention of doing something for the people that they have clearly expressed a wish for. Oh, I know. It's because Red Ed and his party know best. Is that it? Or is it as you say, you already know the results so why bother asking in the first place? At least I understand where you are coming from there. In the past the EU and their managers in each country (we used to call them governments) will ignore the results if it is to leave the EU and offer further votes until "the right answer is given". Yes, quite worrying, isn't it, particularly if you can remember what democracy used to look like before the EU took over. As for your comments about benefits, NHS and education, UKIP are committed to all of them. If it is in the country's interests to have them, then we will have them. And it is in this countrys interests to have all of those things. When I was younger, Labour spent too much on everything and left office leaving behind a financial mess and then the Tories cut everything back too much, and so the pendulum swung between the two parties of government once one party "had gone too far". Now there is UKIP with a different appraoach. To work out what is needed for everybody, not just one slice of society or the other, but for everyone and doing what would widely be considered to be "the right thing". If enough people disagreed with any policy we would hold a referendum to get a popular mandate - wow, imagine that, a referendum if people didn't like what we were doing - how refreshing! You see, we might have lots of ideas, but we are not so arrogant as to suppose that just because we got elected we could do as we demn well please for 5 years. So far, this idea is attracting a lot of voters so we must be doing something right. UKIP, a choice for the future, and a better future at that! Phil Cox (UKIP)

7:19am Thu 12 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

I have given you MY reasoning for describing the EU referendum as a non issue and note you are not really interested in it.

As to UKIP taking Labour votes the polls do not back this up nationally that is for instances of the 2010 vote UKIP are taking less than 5% Labour, this compares to Labour taking 33% of the Libdem vote.

Now in the context of welfare this would be Labour taking votes from a party that has abandoned its position as a party of public services and gone Tory.
I would suggest that the 3 million voters leaving Libdem is more significant than 400K leaving Labour.
I would also suggest that locally UKIP have failed to get one Local Cllr elected and the only success it has had is in the European elections.
I have given you MY reasoning for describing the EU referendum as a non issue and note you are not really interested in it. As to UKIP taking Labour votes the polls do not back this up nationally that is for instances of the 2010 vote UKIP are taking less than 5% Labour, this compares to Labour taking 33% of the Libdem vote. Now in the context of welfare this would be Labour taking votes from a party that has abandoned its position as a party of public services and gone Tory. I would suggest that the 3 million voters leaving Libdem is more significant than 400K leaving Labour. I would also suggest that locally UKIP have failed to get one Local Cllr elected and the only success it has had is in the European elections. dontknowynot

7:24am Thu 12 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

ooops sorry that was meant to be 2,3 million not 3 million, but surly you get the point
ooops sorry that was meant to be 2,3 million not 3 million, but surly you get the point dontknowynot

8:52am Thu 12 Dec 13

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
I have given you MY reasoning for describing the EU referendum as a non issue and note you are not really interested in it. As to UKIP taking Labour votes the polls do not back this up nationally that is for instances of the 2010 vote UKIP are taking less than 5% Labour, this compares to Labour taking 33% of the Libdem vote. Now in the context of welfare this would be Labour taking votes from a party that has abandoned its position as a party of public services and gone Tory. I would suggest that the 3 million voters leaving Libdem is more significant than 400K leaving Labour. I would also suggest that locally UKIP have failed to get one Local Cllr elected and the only success it has had is in the European elections.
I disagree with you strongly over the EU referendum, but that is probably not surprising. There is every chance Red Ed will come out in favour of an EU referendum before the next election. I wonder if you too will change your tune.

I don't know what the polls say about the loss of labour vote to UKIP, but even if it is 5% that shows that 1 in 20 Labour voters prefer UKIP to Labour. I'm happy with that and I predict it will get worse for Labour over time as UKIP gains ground.

33% of LibDem votes equates to about 2.3 million voters, as you say. These were people who can't stomach the thought that their votes got Cameron into power and have returned to Labour. Fair enough.

5% of Labour is about 430,000 though. Nearly half a million people have left Labour for UKIP. Whichever way you look at it, that's a lot of voters who have abandoned the party for UKIP. What does UKIP offer Labour voters that Labour does not? Democracy? Common sense?

As for electoral success, we are doing well in the EU elections, but have you already forgotten the press coverage of UKIPs national breakthrough at the county elections in May? We made a breakthrough across the country in County elections and we are on target to build on that for local elections and parliamentary elections.

So far we have not managed to make a breakthrough in Watford, but there are elections in May and we have much to offer the people of Watford. Let's see how things stand after the next elections. UKIP support is rising and all the other parties are threatened. The LibDems hold court in Watford yet they are not popular in the country, so that is an anomaly that cannot last. It is only a matter of time before they suffer election defeats to UKIP in Watford.

We need better on Watford council. We need UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: I have given you MY reasoning for describing the EU referendum as a non issue and note you are not really interested in it. As to UKIP taking Labour votes the polls do not back this up nationally that is for instances of the 2010 vote UKIP are taking less than 5% Labour, this compares to Labour taking 33% of the Libdem vote. Now in the context of welfare this would be Labour taking votes from a party that has abandoned its position as a party of public services and gone Tory. I would suggest that the 3 million voters leaving Libdem is more significant than 400K leaving Labour. I would also suggest that locally UKIP have failed to get one Local Cllr elected and the only success it has had is in the European elections.[/p][/quote]I disagree with you strongly over the EU referendum, but that is probably not surprising. There is every chance Red Ed will come out in favour of an EU referendum before the next election. I wonder if you too will change your tune. I don't know what the polls say about the loss of labour vote to UKIP, but even if it is 5% that shows that 1 in 20 Labour voters prefer UKIP to Labour. I'm happy with that and I predict it will get worse for Labour over time as UKIP gains ground. 33% of LibDem votes equates to about 2.3 million voters, as you say. These were people who can't stomach the thought that their votes got Cameron into power and have returned to Labour. Fair enough. 5% of Labour is about 430,000 though. Nearly half a million people have left Labour for UKIP. Whichever way you look at it, that's a lot of voters who have abandoned the party for UKIP. What does UKIP offer Labour voters that Labour does not? Democracy? Common sense? As for electoral success, we are doing well in the EU elections, but have you already forgotten the press coverage of UKIPs national breakthrough at the county elections in May? We made a breakthrough across the country in County elections and we are on target to build on that for local elections and parliamentary elections. So far we have not managed to make a breakthrough in Watford, but there are elections in May and we have much to offer the people of Watford. Let's see how things stand after the next elections. UKIP support is rising and all the other parties are threatened. The LibDems hold court in Watford yet they are not popular in the country, so that is an anomaly that cannot last. It is only a matter of time before they suffer election defeats to UKIP in Watford. We need better on Watford council. We need UKIP. Phil Cox (UKIP)

9:44am Thu 12 Dec 13

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
I have given you MY reasoning for describing the EU referendum as a non issue and note you are not really interested in it. As to UKIP taking Labour votes the polls do not back this up nationally that is for instances of the 2010 vote UKIP are taking less than 5% Labour, this compares to Labour taking 33% of the Libdem vote. Now in the context of welfare this would be Labour taking votes from a party that has abandoned its position as a party of public services and gone Tory. I would suggest that the 3 million voters leaving Libdem is more significant than 400K leaving Labour. I would also suggest that locally UKIP have failed to get one Local Cllr elected and the only success it has had is in the European elections.
I disagree with you strongly over the EU referendum, but that is probably not surprising. There is every chance Red Ed will come out in favour of an EU referendum before the next election. I wonder if you too will change your tune.

I don't know what the polls say about the loss of labour vote to UKIP, but even if it is 5% that shows that 1 in 20 Labour voters prefer UKIP to Labour. I'm happy with that and I predict it will get worse for Labour over time as UKIP gains ground.

33% of LibDem votes equates to about 2.3 million voters, as you say. These were people who can't stomach the thought that their votes got Cameron into power and have returned to Labour. Fair enough.

5% of Labour is about 430,000 though. Nearly half a million people have left Labour for UKIP. Whichever way you look at it, that's a lot of voters who have abandoned the party for UKIP. What does UKIP offer Labour voters that Labour does not? Democracy? Common sense?

As for electoral success, we are doing well in the EU elections, but have you already forgotten the press coverage of UKIPs national breakthrough at the county elections in May? We made a breakthrough across the country in County elections and we are on target to build on that for local elections and parliamentary elections.

So far we have not managed to make a breakthrough in Watford, but there are elections in May and we have much to offer the people of Watford. Let's see how things stand after the next elections. UKIP support is rising and all the other parties are threatened. The LibDems hold court in Watford yet they are not popular in the country, so that is an anomaly that cannot last. It is only a matter of time before they suffer election defeats to UKIP in Watford.

We need better on Watford council. We need UKIP.
Labour may well promise a referendum on Europe, that in my mind does not make it any less irrelevant whoever is backing a referendum the result will be the same, we will vote pragmatically to stay in.
As to the polls and may elections my view is that with this being the Euro elections UKIP will look to throw everything into it, certainly if I were a UKIP supporter I would view it as an opportunity, however the polls tend to point to UKIP peaking ln popularity last year.
What does raise an eyebrow however is the amount of Libdem voters that have gone UKIP nationally over 800K .
I am not certain how many UKIP voters have gone Labour but would suspect there have been some probably similar to the Tory flow of voters to Labour about 4% thats what an Tory of about 450K for Labour similar to their outflow to UKIP plus the 2.3 million from Libdem, the maths look very much to be with Labour.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: I have given you MY reasoning for describing the EU referendum as a non issue and note you are not really interested in it. As to UKIP taking Labour votes the polls do not back this up nationally that is for instances of the 2010 vote UKIP are taking less than 5% Labour, this compares to Labour taking 33% of the Libdem vote. Now in the context of welfare this would be Labour taking votes from a party that has abandoned its position as a party of public services and gone Tory. I would suggest that the 3 million voters leaving Libdem is more significant than 400K leaving Labour. I would also suggest that locally UKIP have failed to get one Local Cllr elected and the only success it has had is in the European elections.[/p][/quote]I disagree with you strongly over the EU referendum, but that is probably not surprising. There is every chance Red Ed will come out in favour of an EU referendum before the next election. I wonder if you too will change your tune. I don't know what the polls say about the loss of labour vote to UKIP, but even if it is 5% that shows that 1 in 20 Labour voters prefer UKIP to Labour. I'm happy with that and I predict it will get worse for Labour over time as UKIP gains ground. 33% of LibDem votes equates to about 2.3 million voters, as you say. These were people who can't stomach the thought that their votes got Cameron into power and have returned to Labour. Fair enough. 5% of Labour is about 430,000 though. Nearly half a million people have left Labour for UKIP. Whichever way you look at it, that's a lot of voters who have abandoned the party for UKIP. What does UKIP offer Labour voters that Labour does not? Democracy? Common sense? As for electoral success, we are doing well in the EU elections, but have you already forgotten the press coverage of UKIPs national breakthrough at the county elections in May? We made a breakthrough across the country in County elections and we are on target to build on that for local elections and parliamentary elections. So far we have not managed to make a breakthrough in Watford, but there are elections in May and we have much to offer the people of Watford. Let's see how things stand after the next elections. UKIP support is rising and all the other parties are threatened. The LibDems hold court in Watford yet they are not popular in the country, so that is an anomaly that cannot last. It is only a matter of time before they suffer election defeats to UKIP in Watford. We need better on Watford council. We need UKIP.[/p][/quote]Labour may well promise a referendum on Europe, that in my mind does not make it any less irrelevant whoever is backing a referendum the result will be the same, we will vote pragmatically to stay in. As to the polls and may elections my view is that with this being the Euro elections UKIP will look to throw everything into it, certainly if I were a UKIP supporter I would view it as an opportunity, however the polls tend to point to UKIP peaking ln popularity last year. What does raise an eyebrow however is the amount of Libdem voters that have gone UKIP nationally over 800K . I am not certain how many UKIP voters have gone Labour but would suspect there have been some probably similar to the Tory flow of voters to Labour about 4% thats what an Tory of about 450K for Labour similar to their outflow to UKIP plus the 2.3 million from Libdem, the maths look very much to be with Labour. dontknowynot

11:00am Fri 13 Dec 13

CaptainPC says...

Scum
Scum CaptainPC

11:18am Fri 13 Dec 13

CaptainPC says...

Scum
Scum CaptainPC

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree