|
Post by Incubus on Jun 11, 2004 12:51:17 GMT
Seeing as this small party is gaining more and more recognition, what stance should British citizens be taking?
Since becoming a follower of the Tories after the failure of Labour, I personally would not vote for them.
[Edit by RMR: Just edited the topic title as this discussion is now mainly about Galloway]
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jun 11, 2004 16:32:25 GMT
I wouldn't say that they're fascists, no. I'd say they're nationalists, which isn't a whole lot better. They are 'for Britain', but they're also against everyone else, something that shouldn't be admired.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jun 11, 2004 20:28:57 GMT
I don't really have an opinion on this topic as I know relatively little on UKIP, but from what I have heard this is what I think:
UKIP, in my opinion, has a good stance on Europe. They may wish to consider remaining in the EU (but rejecting the constitution) and fighting for reform. (See the Europe debate for my agenda for reform on Europe).
My main problem with UKIP is that they cannot 'form a government' like the three largest parties can. They are a protest vote for those Tories who do not favour Michael Howards 'central' stance on Europe. Therefore I still favour the Conservative party although I believe that Howard should have a tougher stance on Europe.
Looking into the UKIP party itself behind their policies there are some disturbing rumours that will eventually need to be adressed. There are accusations of facsism and some racism. This is one of the reasons I would not vote for the parties. If anyone knows anything of these rumours please enlighten us all.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Jun 11, 2004 20:47:02 GMT
For Britain or for fascism? Neither: for anachronistic disaffected Tories.
Supporting the Tories because of Labour's failure seems odd, given that nearly all of Labour's policies since 1997 have been stolen from the Tories.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jun 11, 2004 21:39:35 GMT
UKIP, in my opinion, has a good stance on Europe. They may wish to consider remaining in the EU (but rejecting the constitution) and fighting for reform. No they don't. They want us out of Europe under any circumstances and at any cost. Even if staying in the EU is better for the UK, they just want us out. They're just xenophobic.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jun 12, 2004 7:10:05 GMT
Considering the problems Europe causes for us we would be better out if we could retain the free trade agreement (if possible). It's also not suprising how UKIP come up with that view.
|
|
Pooka
Member of Parliament
Pacifist
Posts: 22
|
Post by Pooka on Jul 14, 2004 19:04:09 GMT
UKIP are past Euroscepticism. They're also to the right of the Tories, no matter what they say (their claims to be slightly right-of-centre are false). They're totally xenophobic and I don't see the reason for their views.
If the UK joined the Euro, trade and business opportunities with our European partners would increase. My uncle, who's a businessman, has been pleading for the Euro to come in for years now, and we're not in it.
If the UKIP actually cared about the UK, they'd let us join Europe, rather than keep us out of it. It seems that all they care about is their old, outdated values, not the UK.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jul 14, 2004 19:32:50 GMT
The Euro would be a disaster for our economy; demonstrated by the following points:
Most businesses are against the Euro, and they are the ones we should be listening to.
The Euro is controlled by an unaccountable foreign bank, which also would not have Britain's individual interests in mind when it makes it's decisions. This is demonstrated by Germany. According to a reliable source, appaently with hinesight they admit they would not have joined the Euro as it has been bad for their economy.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 14, 2004 20:22:38 GMT
Again on the European issue, you point out what you think is wrong with the continental option without looking closely at the domestic status quo. The euro may be controlled by an unaccountable foreign bank, but the pound is controlled by the Bank Of England, which isn't very accountable either, although admittedly the appointment (NOT dismissal) of its Governors is in the hands of the Prime Minister.
Both your and Pooka's arguments seem to stem from, "I believe this because someone told me it". I don't think that's the best way to form an opinion. For my own part, I'm in favour of more integration with Europe generally, but I'm neutral on the issue of the euro. We MIGHT gain a few things by it, but we're likely to lose other things as well. In the long run therefore we're likely to wind up in much the same position we're in now, so I'm not sure it'd be worth the fuss of implementing it.
The argument about avoiding the euro on the basis of it being a weak currency should not be taken too seriously incidentally. Every currency has bad times - see what happened to the pound in the 1970's and again in the early 90's (and no one back then was saying "let's scrap the pound and introduce the Japanese yen" or anything) - and the euro might very well improve in strength if more nations joined it. It's certainly stronger than it was in its launch year, and one of the reasons why it's been slow to toughen up is uncertainty over its future membership. It was invented originally as the staple currency of the whole European market after all, and at present most of the EU nations haven't signed up to it. If we and other nations were to join it, some of the uncertainty would evaporate (and there'd also be fewer currencies for it to compete with).
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Jul 22, 2004 9:26:11 GMT
I have a rather unorthodox stance on the UKIP.
Yes, i would vote for them, But;
i would not want them in goverment. If we can vote them to a very close failure (to say, the tories) in the next genteral election, then this would scare the main parties enough, to perhaps cause a shakeup. They would (at long last) change their policies to reflect what the british people want.
Of course, the UKIP could not run a country. They lack experience and skilled politicians. But, if we can stage a protest in the ballot box, that may be enough to change the top 3.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Jul 23, 2004 19:26:09 GMT
Well said Mekanik, and of course I do agree that we are in need of some fresh politics, but UKIP could not run this country. However these smaller 'single policy' parties do have their uses. I would hope that the Big Three, will see how well UKIP have done, and will try to shift their policies onto new areas, not just fighting on the same old battlegrounds. This is the way to attract more voters into our system.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 24, 2004 10:12:03 GMT
I'd certainly agree on that last point, but I think single-issue parties are more problematic than useful. They're really just pressure groups with candidates, and while UKIP might give a much needed jolt to the bigger parties, most of their MP's are gonna spend the next year or two bleating in Parliament and the local Councils about how much they hate foreigners (which is what, when you analyse their speeches, is all their 'policies' boil down to) and contributing nothing constructive to more important issues like continued economic growth and reform of public services. I can't help wondering whether, had different candidates got into those seats, there might've been some more useful thinking in Government for these areas.
Here's an interesting parallel though; consider what happened to the Tories at the last General Election. They spent their entire time making insinuating scare-monger remarks about asylum seekers, and loads of pseudo-patriotic bollocks about "Save The Pound", and the net result was a gain of a paltry six seats from four years earlier! At first glance it looks kind of weird that UKIP are making so much late mid-term headway on the same issues, but their results still underline the fact that such a narrow-minded party is not appealing to the majority as a potential government, and I suspect UKIP'll get annihilated at the General Election.
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Jul 26, 2004 8:13:34 GMT
Well of course, for many the UKIP are simply a protest vote; many people are bored of the same old same old, so they are breaking the mold by voting for this new party. But they wont last long if they get to parliament.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Jul 26, 2004 21:36:35 GMT
Which they have about as much chance of doing as George Galloway has of becoming leader of the Labour Party (mind you, I wish he could).
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Aug 7, 2004 11:34:10 GMT
Suprised you still support Galloway, considering issues raised on another topic, but I'll leave that.
You clearly agree with the rest of us Mekanik; that UKIP do not have it within their capacity to rule the UK, but they serve as a good protest vote.
On the Euro, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the humungous cost and hassle of switching currency. Think about it:
All notes and coins would have to be re-printed/re-minted.
All business computer systems would have to be totally re-configured.
And those are only lame, brief descriptions of the enormity of the task.
Another point to add is that it would take ages to learn to 'visualise' the value of the currency. As most of you know, I've spent the past two weeks in Florida, and even now I can only visualise the cost of basic items. To switch currency permanantly, you'd have to learn to 'visualise' everything.
Aren't most of our opinions formed on things that we've been told? I would know nothing on politics if it weren't for the press.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 7, 2004 12:24:02 GMT
Yes, but you need to get more than one or two sources of information, assess each one on its own merits, and then draw a conclusion on ALL the facts provided.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Aug 7, 2004 13:41:51 GMT
Sorry old son, have to disagree with you on a few little points. All notes and coins would have to be re-printed/re-minted. Big deal. Notes are replaced every six months. I used to work where we changed them. No-one thinks about it, but a bank note is a ridiculously over-use piece of paper, and not even particularly strong paper at that. Do you really think they last any time at all? Alright, coins do, but re-minting coins isn't really that important. All business computer systems would have to be totally re-configured. Just bollocks, this one. All business computers are quite capable of doing Euros without re-configuring, or else you wouldn't be able to buy or sell anything to people in Europe. There may be one or two systems who might require a pathetically tiny software patch, but not even many of those. Another point to add is that it would take ages to learn to 'visualise' the value of the currency. As most of you know, I've spent the past two weeks in Florida, and even now I can only visualise the cost of basic items. To switch currency permanantly, you'd have to learn to 'visualise' everything. This is a fair point, but after about four or five months you'd get used to it. Prices would initially be in both currencies anyway, so we'd quickly learn. And it cuts both ways anyway. Imagine how much more helpful it would be if, when you go on holiday, the prices where you're going are the same as the ones at home. I personally like to go to Holland, and it would be lovely if I knew exactly how much I was spending rather than vaguely doubling or halving, or trying to work out 56%. More importantly, imagine how the businesses that you are always so worried about would gain from not having to pay variable exchange rates and commission charges. There'd be disruption, yes, but once we had the Euro it would be a lot more convenient.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Aug 7, 2004 21:00:57 GMT
This talk of the practical costs of conversion is rubbish. Other EU countries have managed it. Yes, some of them are in economic difficulties and some of these could be argued to be caused in part by the euro, but it is the monetary aspect (e.g. a single base interest rate for the whole eurozone), not the physical, that causes this.
As for the great Galloway, you should read his book, I'm Not The Only One. It reveals, among other things, the truth about his relationship with Saddam (namely that he didn't really have one; he met the man twice, the same number of times as did Donald Rumsfeld, and Galloway wasn't there to flog weapons). Damned good book.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Aug 8, 2004 12:48:39 GMT
Thanks for the info on the Euro. I acknowledge that the computer system info is incorrect (I foolishly forgot about dealings with the continent).
Galloway:
That book you cite Thanatos, does it answer the following points:
Why he made that speech praising Saddam for his 'qualities'.
Why he urged Iraqi's to attack British troops when they invaded Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Aug 15, 2004 15:41:56 GMT
1. I've answered this before, but I shall quote his book(p. 106-7):
"Saddan Hussein and George Galloway were, it seemed, doomed to be an item. Saddam and me - we go way back. Yet there has been no Arab ruler whom I have more mercilessly attacked, about whom I've made more scathing comments, against whom I have campaigned more energetically... ...I had met him only twice - the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld had - and one of those occasions was as part of a large group meeting. The difference between Rumsfeld and me was that he was visiting Saddam to sell weapons of mass destruction and give him surveillance photographs the better to target them, whereas I was meeting him to try to avert more war, more killing and more suffering. In parliament...on television, in the press and at public meetings I have carpet-bombed the record of Saddam Hussein, both before and since I met him for the first time in 1994. But it was what I said on that occasion that made it much easier for my enemies to grotesquely caricature my views: 'Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.' How many times have I had those comments rammed down my throat by people with not a scintilla of my record on human rights and democracy in Iraq? How much do I regret the potential for damage in those words? How long have you got? Just a couple of months before this speech I had described, in parliament, the regime in Baghdad as a 'bestial dictatorship'. And here I was, apparently praising the very same regime, in the beast's own Takriti lair. The 'your' in question in those remarks is not a singular possessive pronoun but a plural. Those being praised for courage, strength and indefatigability...are the 23 million Iraqis, not their president [my emphasis, not Galloway's]...But I should have known better. I entirely misjudged the way in which those comments could be taken out of context."
2. No, it doesn't, because you made that up, or believed someone who did.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Aug 16, 2004 21:02:58 GMT
2. No, it doesn't, because you made that up, or believed someone who did. The latter - I definately heard from someone that he urged attacks on our troops. I believe it was on this forum, on the Iraq war topic, but I can't be bothered to soft through all 11 pages of posts to confirm.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 16, 2004 22:26:55 GMT
Okay, first off it was the Bush v Blair poll, and I was the person who said it. I did NOT make it up. There was in fact a huge storm in the media during early April 2003 about Galloway imploring Arab people from all around the world to defend Iraq and to destroy the invaders.
When he was asked about it on BBC news he firmly refused either to deny that he'd ever made such a statement, or to retract it, insisting that the invasion was illegal (which it undoubtedly was), that he therefore sided with the defenders, and that he would never move from that position.
Now I do like Galloway, and in fact I think his overall stance is fair enough, but calling for the destruction of his fellow countrymen was the point that he went too far. If he had simply stuck to his guns and kept demanding the withdrawal of allied troops from Iraq, that would've been fine, but calling for the deaths of allied soldiers (many of whom are British citizens, and therefore are people that he, as an MP, should be representing) I found shocking.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Aug 17, 2004 19:05:48 GMT
I have been to the BBC News site and checked every result from searching for "George Galloway" in the UK section throughout the whole of April 2003. The only thing I found to which you could possibly be referring is this remark from the great man:
"Given that I believe this invasion is illegal, it follows that the only people fighting legally are the Iraqis, who are defending their country."
That is not an exhortation to attack British soldiers or an expression of hope that someone will, merely a statement that to do so in defence of the country would be legal. You think he "went too far" by stating the obvious?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 17, 2004 19:35:43 GMT
No, but then that's not the statement I was referring to. Read the comment he made on this page, below the "Quick And Easy" heading... news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2905343.stmEspecially important is the way he implies that he wants a non-Iraqi army to defend the country (and the only reason he gives for not directly calling for one is that it's an unrealistic hope), and then he calls for other Arab leaders to intervene.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Aug 17, 2004 21:39:30 GMT
You refer, I assume, to the following:
"Even if it is not realistic to ask a non-Iraqi army to come to defend Iraq, we see Arab regimes pumping oil for the countries who are attacking it.
"We wonder when the Arab leaders will wake up. When are they going to stand by the Iraqi people?"
Once again, there is no exhortation to attacking British soldiers, and I think you infer one too readily. In the absence of any other expression of such sentiment, it seems sensible to interpret the words before the comma as an example of the ill-phrased remark of which 'Gorgeous' George showed himself capable by the infamous utterance, "Sir, I salute your courage..."
|
|