Europe yes or no

[carryfast]

Happy Keith:

Carryfast:
‘… Farage obviously seems to think that the immigration issue matters to a lot of his misguided supporters by making that one of the points which he’s standing on…’

What’s misguided about being unhappy at funding ‘all-comers’ to the UK

Carryfast:
‘…If it’s all just about ‘self determination’ then that’s the ticket which he should be standing on…’’

It is - why not get into 2013’s issues & try disassociating him with the Thatcher woman of thirty years ago

Carryfast:
‘…[T]ogether with being honest that he hasn’t got the bottle or the inclination to cut our ties with Europe totally…’

Eh The reality is that you, me and our society demands European kit, ie, VW, Miele, BMW, Bosch, Rolls-Royce, Audi: That wouldn’t take ‘… bottle or the inclination…’ because not even a nut-job in a trance would vote for it

Britain would work harmoniously with our geographical neighbours through choice & market forces, etc - not because Brussels says we must - whilst forcing penalties on us working alone with the rest of the world

The point I was making is that Farage is doing that typical tory trick of standing on an anti immigration ticket when he knows that his policies have zb all whatsoever to do with stopping the supply of cheap labour for big business which is mainly what Britain’s immigration policy has been based on ever since the days of slavery.If he intends to stop immigration then he wouldn’t be standing on a free markets ticket because the two are totally incompatible.In addition to which it was you who said that the issue is just one of so called self government v that of a federal europe nothing to do with the type of protectionist policies of both our labour market and trade which are needed to sort out our immigration problems and our tade deficit and resulting economic and debt problems.

Bu no if you’ve read and understood anything I’ve said I certainly don’t believe that we should be dependent on imports of European or global imports of any product that we can provide for ourelves and it’s that dependency which has got the country where it is today.Compared to where it was in 1972 which for some reason you don’t seem to be able to understand that the economic figures show was a different world and a different economy with that difference being for the better not like now the worst.

But why would I want to disassociate Farage from Thatcher when he has openly admitted that he is a loyal follower of her policies when it’s policy that matters.

[happy_keith]

Carryfast:
‘…Farage is … standing on an anti immigration ticket when he knows that his policies have zb all whatsoever to do with stopping
the supply of cheap labour for big business which is mainly what Britain’s immigration policy has been based on ever since the days of slavery…’

I disagree; I believe the man wishes to stimulate our unemployed (unemployable?) to do those jobs, which, with
a bit of pride restored might less alienate them in the workplace. Besides, post war immigration was to allow
the skilled (and/or willing) to return to skilled jobs in the 1950’s. Why resist contemporary realities that can be affected?

Carryfast:
‘…If he intends to stop immigration then he wouldn’t be standing on a free markets ticket because the two are totally incompatible…’

He doesn’t manifest to ‘…stop…’ but to have it similar to the USA or Oz - which you’ll perhaps agree becomes compatible.

Carryfast:
‘…[P]rotectionist policies … are needed to sort out our immigration problems and our trade deficit and resulting economic and debt problems…’

In your context perhaps, but not in those of learned others. Besides, would protectionism be an election winner? I think not.

Carryfast:
‘…If you’ve read and understood anything I’ve said … … which for some reason you don’t seem to be able to understand
… like now the worst…’

So be it, but, I do understand that it is 2013 and that we, the electorate have to work from where we, the prole’s, are today

• not from where we could have been if history had been different.

Carryfast:
‘…Farage has openly admitted that he is a loyal follower of [Thatchers] policies …’

Thatcher is politically inactive - she’s an old lady: Thatcher doesn’t have ‘…policies…’ in 2013 whilst
UKIP has vowed never to work with Tories whilst Cameron is their leader, which to me indicates they’re plainly different.

Such detail matters

[carryfast]

Happy Keith:

Carryfast:
‘…Farage is … standing on an anti immigration ticket when he knows that his policies have zb all whatsoever to do with stopping
the supply of cheap labour for big business which is mainly what Britain’s immigration policy has been based on ever since the days of slavery…’

I disagree; I believe the man wishes to stimulate our unemployed (unemployable?) to do those jobs, which, with
a bit of pride restored might less alienate them in the workplace. Besides, post war immigration was to allow
the skilled (and/or willing) to return to skilled jobs in the 1950’s. Why resist contemporary realities that can be affected?

Carryfast:
‘…If he intends to stop immigration then he wouldn’t be standing on a free markets ticket because the two are totally incompatible…’

He doesn’t manifest to ‘…stop…’ but to have it similar to the USA or Oz - which you’ll perhaps agree becomes compatible.

Carryfast:
‘…[P]rotectionist policies … are needed to sort out our immigration problems and our trade deficit and resulting economic and debt problems…’

In your context perhaps, but not in those of learned others. Besides, would protectionism be an election winner? I think not.

Carryfast:
‘…If you’ve read and understood anything I’ve said … … which for some reason you don’t seem to be able to understand
… like now the worst…’

So be it, but, I do understand that it is 2013 and that we, the electorate have to work from where we, the prole’s, are today

• not from where we could have been if history had been different.

Carryfast:
‘…Farage has openly admitted that he is a loyal follower of [Thatchers] policies …’

Thatcher is politically inactive - she’s an old lady: Thatcher doesn’t have ‘…policies…’ in 2013 whilst
UKIP has vowed never to work with Tories whilst Cameron is their leader, which to me indicates they’re plainly different.

Such detail matters

It’s that issue of 1973-2013 being all about the EU and the global free market economy,resulting in closed down industries and imports of stuff which we can make for ourselves and the resulting loss of demand in the labour market,leading to unemployment and lower wages and therefore loss of spending power in the economy and massive trade deficits,which is the problem and yet more of the same won’t fix anything.As opposed to 1960-1972 type industrial activety,in a market where imports of stuff which we can make for ourselves weren’t a factor,leading to higher demand for labour and therefore higher wages and more spending power in the economy spent on domestically made goods and resulting trade surpluses.

While on immigration policy I don’t think the US has anything to teach us considering that it has almost turned itself into a Hispanic speaking country now in addition to the problem caused by the importation of even ‘cheaper’ labour before that.IE just because they won’t let the Brits in doesn’t mean that they haven’t got an almost open door immigration policy with the neighbouring South American countries all motivated by the demand of big business for cheap labour.While just as here those jobs that aren’t subject to import of cheap labour there are exported in the case of outsourcing work to those South American countries.That’s in addition to imports of goods,which they could make for themselves,from China.Which is why the US economy is in worse shape than ours is.

As for post war immigration policy here how did that help the economy in the sense that those higher skilled wage rates also depend on having relatively high wage rates further down the skill level line.In which case Ford etc could have sold more Zodiacs etc if we hadn’t have increased the labour supply artificially by importing labour from the ‘Commonwealth’ countries.Nothing changes now in the case of importing yet more cheap labour from East Europe adding yet more to the supply of labour.

The fact is this country could have been a lot richer than Germany by now if we’d have been running a protected economy in which our coal industry was kept running.While our oil and gas supplies were kept for domestic consumption at below world market prices,with an economy based on protection from imports of goods which we could make for ourselves and imported cheap labour.As I’ve said the choice is to get back to as near as possible to that ideal at least in the sense of re opening our coal mines and putting our industries and trade balance back on the footing where they were in 1960-1972,or go under.As you say no one seems to want to vote for that in which case the choice of voting for Farage,as opposed to Clegg,Cameron,or Miliband,is irrelevant.

[happy_keith]

‘…Re: EUROPE YES OR NO…’

We are where we are now.

Meanwhile, whilst being sore how we got to this sad, undemocratic political disater is a lesson, but disengaging from
finding a solution outside the EU’s prison is a crime against our children’s children.

Europe’s bullying meglamania and Cam-Clegg-Millipede’s ‘promises to demand change’ (LOL)

No thanks - under any circumstances

[carryfast]

Happy Keith:
‘…Re: EUROPE YES OR NO…’

We are where we are now.

Meanwhile, whilst being sore how we got to this sad, undemocratic political disater is a lesson, but disengaging from
finding a solution outside the EU’s prison is a crime against our children’s children.

Europe’s bullying meglamania and Cam-Clegg-Millipede’s ‘promises to demand change’ (LOL)

No thanks - under any circumstances

It depends on the definition of ‘NO’.If ‘no’ means the similar type of situation that Switzerland has now managed to put itself into and/or even closer economic and political ties to China,instead of Europe,a so called ‘NO’ vote really won’t make much,if any,difference to the present situation that we’re in.

[r_d]

OUT

[happy_keith]

Carryfast:
‘… If ‘no’ means … closer economic and political ties to China,instead of Europe, a so called ‘NO’ vote really won’t make… any difference …’

I understand that Nigel says:

1 Sacking the EU does not mean blanking Europe - either in parts or as a whole.

2 How come the specific Love-in/Capitulation suggestion with China

There is Russia, Brazil and India of the ‘BRIC nations’ to do business with as well: Business that Britain does particularly well but which the EU is adamant to block off for us (and fine us for ) via its red-tape & blood-sucking stranglehold

[carryfast]

Happy Keith:

Carryfast:
‘… If ‘no’ means … closer economic and political ties to China,instead of Europe, a so called ‘NO’ vote really won’t make… any difference …’

I understand that Nigel says:

1 Sacking the EU does not mean blanking Europe - either in parts or as a whole.

2 How come the specific Love-in/Capitulation suggestion with China

There is Russia, Brazil and India of the ‘BRIC nations’ to do business with as well: Business that Britain does particularly well but which the EU is adamant to block off for us (and fine us for ) via its red-tape & blood-sucking stranglehold

So exactly what do you intend to export to Brazil that they haven’t already got or can get made more cheaply closer to home like in Mexico for example or from China which is where most of Brazil’s raw materials exports go .

kidscornerbrazil.org/content/economy.php

Russia is all about flogging us oil and gas in ever smaller amounts for ever higher prices which just means eventually sending them loads of stuff for nothing all because we flogged off our own oil and gas supplies.

India have always been a poverty ridden place and,like China,the only way that India will be able to buy anything from us is if we give them the know how,money and investment etc to do it.Although I think we’ve already done that.

As for China I think there’s no argument that China is the Germany of the global free market economy and it’s China who’ll be pulling the strings if we just exchange less ties with Europe for more ties with the global free market economy.

The fact is we need to cut our ties with both the EU and the global free market economy before it’s too late.Assuming it isn’t already too late.

[happy_keith]

Carryfast:
‘…[W]hat do you intend to export to Brazil that they haven’t already got…?’

Gosh, Sunshine Time

Emerging markets gag for British ‘quality branded goods’ apparently, although nothing mass produced or low-end: Brazil’s mineral wealth comes in handy for others to fettle.

Carryfast:
‘…Russia is all about flogging us oil and gas in ever smaller amounts for ever higher prices which just means eventually sending them loads of stuff for nothing all because we flogged off our own oil and gas supplies…’

Britain’s progress (or mere ‘existence’ under the EU) should not ignore Russia’s existence

[Lets not omit to knife the EU by overlooking how wads of British tax-revenue from our largely spent gas & oil resources got sent to Brussels to pay our EU subscription after we paid-off America for World War Two funds owed]
[/size]

Carryfast:
'…India ha always been a poverty ridden place…’
[/quote]
True - and now many Indians et al are ‘emerging’ to join the consumer ■■■■-fest that British greed-angels can exploit and do it on wholly British terms and not be throttled via an overcomplex Strasbourg/Brussels diktat.
> Carryfast:
> ‘…[L]ike China, the only way that India will be able to buy anything from us is if we give them the know how, money and investment…’
Aaah : You steal my thunder by indicating how Britain is both a major world R&D hub as well as the leading finance centre - which will change when Brussels deregulate it and it goes to Frankfurt like the EU/Germans will if Britain remains in the EU and no-one votes ‘No’ to stop them (or the nation’s brain-dead & dim vote ‘yes’ to shoo it off)
> Carryfast:
> ‘…China is the Germany of the global free market economy and it’s China who’ll be pulling the strings if we just exchange less ties with Europe for more ties with the global free market economy…’
As above, don’t overlook their citizens who have disposable income ‘consumer-demanding’ to buy posh, British high-end/quality tat
> Carryfast:
> ‘…The fact is we need to cut our ties with both the EU and the global free market economy before it’s too late…’
The former is possible - if Britons do it now, whilst the latter needs doing with guille and on terms favourable to Britain which is the ability that once put the ‘Great’ in Britain.
It is thus that I am unable to share the Misery-fest of ‘not-voting as a protest’ humbug.
Jeepers, I can mither, but am avoiding the gloom & doom by seeing a twenty-first century way out to a hopeful pasture only available via full UK Independence - mindful that it’s not a theoretical socialist model as once could have been done in a by-gone age by now dead people.

[carryfast]

Happy Keith:

Carryfast:
‘…[W]hat do you intend to export to Brazil that they haven’t already got…?’

Gosh, Sunshine Time

Emerging markets gag for British ‘quality branded goods’ apparently, although nothing mass produced or low-end: Brazil’s mineral wealth comes in handy for others to fettle.

Carryfast:
‘…Russia is all about flogging us oil and gas in ever smaller amounts for ever higher prices which just means eventually sending them loads of stuff for nothing all because we flogged off our own oil and gas supplies…’

Britain’s progress (or mere ‘existence’ under the EU) should not ignore Russia’s existence

[Lets not omit to knife the EU by overlooking how wads of British tax-revenue from our largely spent gas & oil resources got sent to Brussels to pay our EU subscription after we paid-off America for World War Two funds owed]
[/size]

Carryfast:
'…India ha always been a poverty ridden place…’
[/quote]
True - and now many Indians et al are ‘emerging’ to join the consumer ■■■■-fest that British greed-angels can exploit and do it on wholly British terms and not be throttled via an overcomplex Strasbourg/Brussels diktat.
> Carryfast:
> ‘…[L]ike China, the only way that India will be able to buy anything from us is if we give them the know how, money and investment…’
Aaah : You steal my thunder by indicating how Britain is both a major world R&D hub as well as the leading finance centre - which will change when Brussels deregulate it and it goes to Frankfurt like the EU/Germans will if Britain remains in the EU and no-one votes ‘No’ to stop them (or the nation’s brain-dead & dim vote ‘yes’ to shoo it off)
> Carryfast:
> ‘…China is the Germany of the global free market economy and it’s China who’ll be pulling the strings if we just exchange less ties with Europe for more ties with the global free market economy…’
As above, don’t overlook their citizens who have disposable income ‘consumer-demanding’ to buy posh, British high-end/quality tat
> Carryfast:
> ‘…The fact is we need to cut our ties with both the EU and the global free market economy before it’s too late…’
The former is possible - if Britons do it now, whilst the latter needs doing with guille and on terms favourable to Britain which is the ability that once put the ‘Great’ in Britain.
It is thus that I am unable to share the Misery-fest of ‘not-voting as a protest’ humbug.
Jeepers, I can mither, but am avoiding the gloom & doom by seeing a twenty-first century way out to a hopeful pasture only available via full UK Independence - mindful that it’s not a theoretical socialist model as once could have been done in a by-gone age by now dead people.
[/quote]
There are no terms possible that would be favourable to Britain by staying with either the EU or the global free market economy.You still don’t seem to be able to comprehend the fact that China’s,like India’s,‘disposable’ income is all money that we’ve given them first by buying stuff from them that we don’t need and that we could make for ourselves.Effectively we’re giving them Rolls Royces in exchange for a load of cheap tat.Because at the end of the day China,like India,has got zb all that we need.As for the issue of flogging off and effectively giving away our own gas and oil resources to the EU,thereby making ourselves dependent on Russia,that’s what I’ve been saying.
But we’ve still got our coal reserves and the best way of using those would be to tell the global warming believers to zb off and then use them here and cut our reliance on Russian gas.None of which seems to be part of Farage’s policy.No surprise being that he’s a raving Thatcherite.While you obviously seem tied to the failed idea that Britain can export it’s way to wealth when it’s the opposite idea of Fordism that the economy needs in which case it’s all about the domestic economy and the domestic market that matters.Not foreign ones.

[happy_keith]

Carryfast:
‘…Effectively we’re giving them Rolls Royces in exchange for a load of cheap tat.Because at the end of the day China,like India,has got zb all that we need. … it’s all about the domestic economy and the domestic market that matters. Not foreign ones…’

Rolls Royce is German owned - so ‘we’ can’t even give those away anymore.

Maybe tell folk at queing with ‘Made in China’ goods at Argos & the Tesco ‘home’ sections, etc, that they don’t ‘…need…’ what they’re buying in skiploads: Surely, that is the ‘…domestic market…’

[carryfast]

Happy Keith:

Carryfast:
‘…Effectively we’re giving them Rolls Royces in exchange for a load of cheap tat.Because at the end of the day China,like India,has got zb all that we need. … it’s all about the domestic economy and the domestic market that matters. Not foreign ones…’

Rolls Royce is German owned - so ‘we’ can’t even give those away anymore.

Maybe tell folk at queing with ‘Made in China’ goods at Argos & the Tesco ‘home’ sections, etc, that they don’t ‘…need…’ what they’re buying in skiploads: Surely, that is the ‘…domestic market…’

I think you’re missing the point that in 1960-72 those customers would have been buying consumer goods mostly made here by British companies with their hard earned cash being kept in the uk economy to employ more British workers on decent wages who then spent more money on more British made stuff. Thereby keeping the uk economy moving and growing.That’s what I meant by ‘the domestic economy’ not the present global free market one.It’s basic junior school economics we’re talking about here not rocket science.

[happy_keith]

Carryfast:
‘…[During] 1960-72 … customers would have been buying consumer goods mostly made here by British companies with their (1) hard earned cash being (2) kept in the uk economy to employ more British workers **(3)**on decent wages who then spent more money on more (4) British made stuff. Thereby keeping the uk economy moving and growing.That’s what I meant by ‘the domestic economy’ not the present global free market one. **(5)**It’s basic junior school economics we’re talking about here not rocket science…’

(1) I mildly believe that money is less ‘…hard-earned…’ in 2013 and that the term is an overworked and too easily parodied social cliche

N.B. I begrudgingly acknowledge gratitude to the EU for bullying/forcing/pushing Health & Safety - or was it Britain’s passive, albeit disengaging subserviance to such indoctrination?

Whatever, now that Britain has seen the benefit and got the H&S message we can move-on safely - on British terms and because our work is less ‘hard’ these days with confidence & with more prolonged mental and physical health too.

Kinnell, it’s win-win-win with UK Independence

(2) Globalisation has always existed, so is it reasonable for us to unilaterally undo World Order (as distinctly different from the EU’s stinking order) has taken Britain : I reckon not

(3) Can we seriously envisage British parents encouraging their offspring to work in a manufactory in 2013 and beyond

• I reflect that, as you argue, Britain missed the boat during the 1962-1977 era ironically when Triumph motorbikes really when phutt and the North Sea puked the oil that raised the value of sterling too high to sustain British exports.

• Hasn’t ‘expectation’, rightly or wrongly, ‘risen’ [sic] above the ambition to work in any factory that isn’t the mutts-nuts (ie, the mutts ■■■■) in technology

• Can this tiny island sustain large volume, low value logistics - meaning more lorries

(4) Even mass produced (and once) ‘…British made…’ Cadbury chocolate relies on imported cocoa - but is now mostly made in Poland. Thus, the notion of going all insular and ‘Little British’ would fail basic dietary necessities (to fatties) getting to the shelves. So as the party advocating UK independence suggests, fully international relationships must be encouraged for British political & social self-benefit to flourish

(5) I’m interpreting that the question ‘…EUROPE YES OR NO…’ is to evaluate what’s best for British socio-economic and health benefit - what with it broadly being healthy to be engaged and employed in one’s own country rather than being bossed around & disenfranchised from afar by the undemocratic EU.

• Rather that than review the World Order of failed economics: The thread is surely seeking to discuss what’s best for Britain now - which I rationally argue is UK Independence through whatever means is currently available to emerge from the EU’s federally unpatriotic stranglehold

[carryfast]

Happy Keith:

Carryfast:
‘…[During] 1960-72 … customers would have been buying consumer goods mostly made here by British companies with their (1) hard earned cash being (2) kept in the uk economy to employ more British workers **(3)**on decent wages who then spent more money on more (4) British made stuff. Thereby keeping the uk economy moving and growing.That’s what I meant by ‘the domestic economy’ not the present global free market one. **(5)**It’s basic junior school economics we’re talking about here not rocket science…’

(1) I mildly believe that money is less ‘…hard-earned…’ in 2013 and that the term is an overworked and too easily parodied social cliche

N.B. I begrudgingly acknowledge gratitude to the EU for bullying/forcing/pushing Health & Safety - or was it Britain’s passive, albeit disengaging subserviance to such indoctrination?

Whatever, now that Britain has seen the benefit and got the H&S message we can move-on safely - on British terms and because our work is less ‘hard’ these days with confidence & with more prolonged mental and physical health too.

Kinnell, it’s win-win-win with UK Independence

(2) Globalisation has always existed, so is it reasonable for us to unilaterally undo World Order (as distinctly different from the EU’s stinking order) has taken Britain : I reckon not

(3) Can we seriously envisage British parents encouraging their offspring to work in a manufactory in 2013 and beyond

• I reflect that, as you argue, Britain missed the boat during the 1962-1977 era ironically when Triumph motorbikes really when phutt and the North Sea puked the oil that raised the value of sterling too high to sustain British exports.

• Hasn’t ‘expectation’, rightly or wrongly, ‘risen’ [sic] above the ambition to work in any factory that isn’t the mutts-nuts (ie, the mutts ■■■■) in technology

• Can this tiny island sustain large volume, low value logistics - meaning more lorries

(4) Even mass produced (and once) ‘…British made…’ Cadbury chocolate relies on imported cocoa - but is now mostly made in Poland. Thus, the notion of going all insular and ‘Little British’ would fail basic dietary necessities (to fatties) getting to the shelves. So as the party advocating UK independence suggests, fully international relationships must be encouraged for British political & social self-benefit to flourish

All of which is why Farage won’t be getting my vote at the next election.

No globalisation hasn’t always existed in the way it exists now.

As I’ve said before the bigger picture,concerning British industry,as a whole,as it applied in 1960-72,involved ( a lot ) more than just zb Triumph motorbikes.Suggest you check out the actual trade figures related to Britain’s overall trade figures then compared to after that time.While I’ve already posted the difference which that made to our economic growth figures then compared to now.

North Sea oil was actually a massive advantage to us (if) it had been kept for the home market only sold at ( well ) below world market prices to give British workers a competitive edge in wage demands.As we saw that wasn’t the case because the greedy big business zb’s got their hands on it and flogged it off to foreign countries instead just like our gas reserves.Thereby artificially raising the value of the pound in the short term and,after shutting down our coal industry, making us dependent on fuel imports in the long term.

As for working in factories.I’ve been there and seen it and done it.For someone who’s cut out to be a truck driver it’s a type of living hell.But for others it’s interesting work which they enjoy and thrive on at best or tolerable at worst.But in all cases it’s better than being unemployed or in low wage employment earning zb all.

youtube.com/watch?v=02eULOTP6CA

[happy_keith]

Carryfast:
‘… Farage won’t be getting my vote at the next election…’

Can leaving the expensive shackles of the EU really be achieved by:

1. Not voting and
2. Sulking - because what could have happened forty years ago went awry under a woman called Thatcher

Carryfast:
‘…[G}lobalisation hasn’t always existed in the way it exists now…’

Absolutely correct because we are now in 2013 and have a history from which mistakes have been learned. Farage knows about these and also that it is neither 1979, Thatcher is not PM any more and that yesterday’s mistakes will be mitigated as best as is possible - outside the EU.

Carryfast:
‘…Suggest you check out the actual trade figures related to Britain’s overall trade figures then compared to after that time…’

Sure, I could also study for a history degree too - which doesn’t magically transport me back to any rose-tinted age from where we (or at least I) now live in 2013

Carryfast:
‘…North Sea oil was actually a massive advantage to us (if) it had been kept for the home market only…’

You make my point again by highlighting what could have happened - but didn’t.

1. You overlook that the pound sterling was too high which significantly wrecked the UK’s North Sea age economy beyond it’s capability to manufacture old design, over unionised consumer goods.
2. We are now in 2013 with lessons learned beneath our belt

Carryfast:
‘…As for working in factories … for others it’s interesting work which they enjoy and thrive on at best or tolerable at worst…’

1. Not at all patronising
2. Strange how (too often dull & mind numbing)factory work isn’t on too many lips of preferred employment for our media-degree laden young-folk.

[carryfast]

Happy Keith:

Carryfast:
‘… Farage won’t be getting my vote at the next election…’

Can leaving the expensive shackles of the EU really be achieved by:

1. Not voting and
2. Sulking - because what could have happened forty years ago went awry under a woman called Thatcher

Carryfast:
‘…[G}lobalisation hasn’t always existed in the way it exists now…’

Absolutely correct because we are now in 2013 and have a history from which mistakes have been learned. Farage knows about these and also that it is neither 1979, Thatcher is not PM any more and that yesterday’s mistakes will be mitigated as best as is possible - outside the EU.

Carryfast:
‘…Suggest you check out the actual trade figures related to Britain’s overall trade figures then compared to after that time…’

Sure, I could also study for a history degree too - which doesn’t magically transport me back to any rose-tinted age from where we (or at least I) now live in 2013

Carryfast:
‘…North Sea oil was actually a massive advantage to us (if) it had been kept for the home market only…’

You make my point again by highlighting what could have happened - but didn’t.

1. You overlook that the pound sterling was too high which significantly wrecked the UK’s North Sea age economy beyond it’s capability to manufacture old design, over unionised consumer goods.
2. We are now in 2013 with lessons learned beneath our belt

Carryfast:
‘…As for working in factories … for others it’s interesting work which they enjoy and thrive on at best or tolerable at worst…’

1. Not at all patronising
2. Strange how (too often dull & mind numbing)factory work isn’t on too many lips of preferred employment for our media-degree laden young-folk.

Just like Farage you don’t seem to be able to get the idea that there is no other way.It’s my guess that there are plenty of those degree laden young folk who will end up a lot poorer over the course of their liftetime in our deindustrialised wasteland in which the printed money earn’t doing office jobs or service industry jobs is used to pay for imports of fuel and consumer goods at trade deficit levels.While I don’t think you’ll find many workers who’ve been made redundant from high paying jobs in industry who’ll agree with you.

No doubt that a Thatcherite like Farage would also be able to understand your obvious negative views of high paying unionised jobs rather than being able to understand that high wages spent on domestically produced goods is a good thing not a bad thing.

[bewick]

I would hazzard a guess “CF” that you are one of those voters that mark their ballot paper " non of the above",but I do feel sorry for you 'me old Son as you will probably have to wait a good long while before the arrival of a Political party that combines the skills of Mao Tsitung,Stalin,Erich Hoenecker and Gengis Khan rolled into one !! Only problem is “CF” you’d be the first ■■■■ put up against the Wall if we ever become a “one party” state along the lines I’ve described ! Now look “CF” you obviously don’t live very far from Eastleigh so get your bleeding self along there and start waving one of Nigels UKIP banners about among those Lib Dem banner waving ■■■■■ !!I’ll be looking out for you on the Telly news in the coming days,who knows,Nige may “clock” you as a prospect for “high” office when he wins the next General Election !! Miricals can and do happen you know!! Cheers Bewick.

[winseer]

The reason I won’t be voting Farage on my ballot paper, is that he isn’t a candidate in my ward.

I’ll vote for whoever has the best chance of ousting whoever the incumbent is.
Turn 'em over, or don’t turn up!

[carryfast]

Bewick:
I would hazzard a guess “CF” that you are one of those voters that mark their ballot paper " non of the above",but I do feel sorry for you 'me old Son as you will probably have to wait a good long while before the arrival of a Political party that combines the skills of Mao Tsitung,Stalin,Erich Hoenecker and Gengis Khan rolled into one !! Only problem is “CF” you’d be the first [zb] put up against the Wall if we ever become a “one party” state along the lines I’ve described ! Now look “CF” you obviously don’t live very far from Eastleigh so get your bleeding self along there and start waving one of Nigels UKIP banners about among those Lib Dem banner waving [zb] !!I’ll be looking out for you on the Telly news in the coming days,who knows,Nige may “clock” you as a prospect for “high” office when he wins the next General Election !! Miricals can and do happen you know!! Cheers Bewick.

No chance of that Bewick.I might as well just give up and like him say that Maggie was right in that case.As for Mao and Stalin it was China and Russia that have benefitted more than us from Maggie’s policies probably just as would continue to be the case if Farage takes over where she left off.Whereas I’d have kept the money to be spent here on British made goods and British coal,oil and gas instead.But as for that list you’ve provided they all seemed to me to have been off their trollies.Just like Wilson,Callaghan,Thatcher,Blair and Cam and Clegg.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
The reason I won’t be voting Farage on my ballot paper, is that he isn’t a candidate in my ward.

I’ll vote for whoever has the best chance of ousting whoever the incumbent is.
Turn 'em over, or don’t turn up!

Blimey if we all do that here we’ll get a LibDem MP instead of a Tory one.