marshy

David Cameron has already been told in no uncertain terms by the de facto Fuhrer of the EU 4th Reich herself - Angela Merkel - that there will be no EU reform. This is the reason why a Conservative or Labour vote is a wasted vote - unless you want Britain further under the tyrannical beauracratic and technocratic EU jackboot that is.

The French have said 'NON'  too.

It's amazing to hear some people say, and I have even seen the opinion expressed on these boards, that they would prefer to be ruled by Germans than by our own elected leaders. If they're so bloody keen to be ruled by them there is always the option of going to live over there.

It was recommended by the Bank. This is all minuted and on record. Gold reserves are a bit of a hangover to when currencies were pegged on them. Lots of countries have none or virtually none - China, Canada and Australia to name but three. We still hold enough to put us in the World top 10. Of course, what the propagandists didn't tell you was as gold was sold the BoE was boosting its foreign currency reserves. These had been depleted ruinously during the Thatcher recession.

The reserves were - of course - sold over three years, not in one lump sum - and many years before any bank bailouts. The two events are not connected in any way.

I think you are being naive if you think Brown had nothing to do with the decision to sell a huge chunk of our gold. The bank was of course also adding to foreign currency reserves, mostly in the form of Euros unfortunately which are steadily going down the pan.

China is number six, and adding. Admittedly their gold is a small % of total foreign exchange holdings. We are 18th, no longer in the top ten, not that it really matters. Digging stuff up from one hole and then 'burying' it in another is ultimately futile.Probably best to hold on to what we've got left, however, you never know what might come to pass in the future at a time of crisis.

I can only imagine the howls of abuse on here if it had been a Tory government that had used the proceeds from a gold sale to bail out the banks, pouring money into the laps of his 'banker chums'.

Interesting as well that they went to great lengths to tell us that 'ordinary working people' would be given priority to buy the shares, when 2/3 ended up with city institutions. Surely Gideon and his pals didn't pull a fast one?!?!

Well 150 000 'ordinary working people', Royal Mail staff were actually given 10% of the company, 99.75% accepted the offer and a mere 368 refused them on principle. People write as though 'the institutions' are an evil force whereas they hold investments and pension funds for 'ordinary working people'. Maybe your pension fund even holds some shares in Royal Mail?

Political 'Left' and 'Right' is a product of a BBC political news and views film set and their 'swing- o-meter' - although they'd argue that it's to do with Revolutionary France. Strictly speaking 'Left' is 'collectivism' and 'Right' is 'individualism'. Former EU Fuhrer Herr Adolf Hitler is 'left wing' for this reason.

You are absolutely correct. The main political debate should be about the size of the state. Sparta or Athens, Chairman Mao or Adam Smith ?

If we continue down the road of building this huge European superstate one day it will fall under the control of an heir to Hitler.

Interesting effects in France as the people vote in droves for the anti-EU FN.

Highest tally ever - and incumbent socialist  politicians are thrown by the wayside as the EU loving party of apologists panic........

This is the result of people becoming angry enough to vote.

Finally in the UK, people are so angry with the EU, unfettered immigration and wars that are nothing to do with us, that they are voting for change.

 

If UKIP do as well as expected in Europe - watch the EU loving LIb/Lab/Con parties do the same.

First casualty the Lib Dems?

Yep, the Socialists are making a real mess of things over there. Marine le Pen has done a good job, from her point of view, in de-demonising the Front National. The working man and woman has voted for her in droves. It amazes me that the same hasn't yet happened here with the massive issue of cheap immigrant labour taking unskilled work. I can understand the Labour party supporting the EU as it loves the big state and state control but not the working man. The working man doesn't seem to be quite so actively engaged by politics over here and will turn out to do what their parents and grandparents did before them. Maybe things are about to change.

Well if you look back over my posts, I didn't really agree with the notion of the debate in the first place; it was arbitrary and based on a cult of personality. It was merely two people with opposing views constantly reiterating those views. Given the format of the show, there was no way to prove any argument and i suspect that both of them were wrong much of the time. The % of law originating in the EU is a case in point. During the debate I had no clue which figure (7% or 70%) was correct, I have since found out (from a prof of EU law on radio 4 the next day) that it's 10-15%, depending on your pov. Similarly, we have no idea how many jobs will be lost in the event of withdrawal from the EU and I suspect that 3 million would be a gross overestimate. However, it's similarly naive to imagine there won't be a significant period of 'readjustment' which will result in job losses. I won't comment on Cleggs interruptions as most of it I followed on the BBC text commentary, but both were mentioned as mumbling and speaking over the other on that

The format of a TV debate works for a general election as you can speak in policy decisions and absolutes. This was just speculation and opinion and will have changed very, very few minds in my view. I agree with you that Farage is sincere in his views, but I'm not convinced he's sincere in his motives (I'd probably say the same about Clegg actually) and I'm no closer to voting for him than I was before the debate. No doubt you're exactly the same in relation to Nick Clegg, which kind of proves my point

Well I'm with you on the debate, for me it's a format that simply doesn't work.

7% or 70%, total law on the book or current law? In the final analysis do we wish to make our own laws or do we want to be subject to a common European law? I know which I prefer, the closer these things are done to home the better.

How many jobs will be lost, as scaremonger Clegg reiterates, or how many jobs might be gained if we are trading freely with the entire world?

Me, vote for Clegg, hell will freeze over first.

Are you saying Cleggy's not a proud Englishman Marshy ?

You got that in one Eco.

Yes mate. I don't know about you, but I do have friends and this one made that observation on the pronounciation of Nige's surname.  I'm not sure what that has to do with the BBC, Nick Clegg, or indeed the price of eggs, but there you go.

 

Someone else's opinion on NF and the observation that Farridge would be a more Anglicised way of referring to himself. I think it's probably a class thing to go with the original, French pronounciation.

 

You Ukip chaps seem a bit touchy about any inferred criticism of your hero. 

No, I'm a Johnny no-mates Robbo, I can't even make friends on this board. No-one will miss me when I'm gone.

Anyway tell your 'friend' that he shouldn't refer to Nigel as a 'Little Englander', he's anything but.

Andy Parsons tells that joke about the pronunciation of 'Farage' on his latest tour..very funny it was too, the way he told it. No mention though of the French pronunciation being a class thing, that probably goes back to the time of William the Conqueror.

A friend of mine opines that surely as a keen Little Englander he should pronounce his own name Farr-adge  (to rhyme with Garage) rather than the French Fa-raj.

 

It's all a mystery...

'A friend of mine eh?' I hardly think that Farage would describe himself as a 'Little Englander'. Just the opposite in fact.Trade with the whole world Robbo..global you know. Still if Clegg and his ilk keep repeating it I suppose the uninitiated will eventually believe it...keep throwing mud and some will stick and it's votes that count, the truth is irrelevant.

Ah ok. You're interested in this as a 'cult of personality'. Fair enough. As I'm interested in their policies rather than their 'performance', we shall part ways SX225

In theory I would agree. Unfortunately ,with regard to Clegg, it is impossible to separate the man's 'performance' from the policy that he is currently espousing. Having watched the first debate I can only conclude that the man is a smug, self-serving snake, a master of disinformation and the true heir to Blair.

Despite all the predictions on here to the contrary I thought he did well against Farage and I write as a supporter of the party that wishes to see an exit from the EU. Clegg is used to the knockabout politics of Westminster whereas Farage is used to the sterile atmosphere of Brussels where he is allowed his minute of speech without constant interruptions and the only dissenting noise might be a protest half a mile away at the other end of the chamber.

He was allowed to constantly interrupt and to talk over his opponent and Farage, being the gentleman that he is, even allowed him to do so.

A couple of examples. Clegg constantly repeated that only 7% of our laws come from Brussels whereas most other people put the figure at well over 70% and Germany puts the figure at over 80%. Of course the casual viewer is not to know that Clegg is referring to law on the statute book dating back to the time of the Magna Carta whereas we all assume he is talking of the present day.

3m jobs apparently will be lost if we leave the EU according to Clegg. He knows full well of course that back in 2008 when this study was carried out 3m jobs were connected to the EU but that is a far cry from saying that these jobs would be lost if we were to leave. Why would the EU suddenly stop trading with its largest export market, from their point of view it doesn't make sense.

You may not agree with him but at least with Farage you can say that he is a proud Englishman, sincere in his beliefs, beliefs for which he has been campaigning for many years. With Clegg I'm afraid, and I know you've indicated potential support for him in the past, I see a man that changes with the wind and a man that, even when he makes a ludicrous attempt to speak with passion, can never truly convince me that he believes in what he says.

A sensibly argued post.

I think ultimately diplomacy might come to a conclusion about Crimea whereby it becomes a Russian oblast but special rights and guarantees are offered to the non-Russian inhabitants. The 40% who almost certainly didn't vote in the joke "referendum".

I thought I've read that Tymoshenko had ruled out running again, but you cannot always believe what politicians say I suppose!

That's a great word isn't it...''oblast''. One feels somehow there should be a space after the 'o'.

Whilst I agree with the first part of your post Marshy, I'm surprised at the second.

Surely, many or all of those candidate may be preferable to the man with the solid gold golf clubs and pirate galleon? You know, the guy whose son suddenly became Ukraine's richest man during his reign - largely off the back of state-owned enterprises he mysteriously "acquired". The man who imprisoned political opponents and ordered special police snipers to open fire on his own people.

I don't pretend to be an expert on Ukrainian politics and I doubt you are either, but we have to conclude that whoever wins the elections will likely be an improvement on Yanukovych and that - other than in Russian language areas - the decision (taken by parliament) to impeach him, enjoys widespread support.

As for the gas question; don't underestimate Russian reliance on Ukrainian grain and agricultural produce. There may be a whole lot of posturing going on - from all sides - but money will suggest that a full-blown trade war will not follow.

You correctly assume that, like yourself, I'm no expert on Ukrainian politics. However, from what little I do know I would sincerely hope that they don't give Timoshenko another shot at it as there seem to be huge question marks over her record.

With regard to the gas question I was simply making the point that a doubling of the price of gas on May1st for domestic consumers, industrial only 40% apparently and slightly later, as one of the measures demanded by the IMF/EU  in return for the guarantee of the loan could have some very ugly consequences. Surely they will have to tone down that demand?

A trade war would be a disaster and could lead to something even worse. As you know I am strongly in favour of the principle of self-determination. The 'West' needs to accept the fact that the Crimean people have had their say and that it's time to move on.

Can't any number be expressed as being 100% greater than zero?!?!

Of course and UKIP have had an effect on Tory policy in the last 12 months, I was merely making the point that as things stand they have no MPs whereas other parties do

Indeed, as is there choice. I'm just surprised that the BBC would televise a debate solely between the deputy PM and the leader of a party with no MPs

100% of 0 is still zero.

To calculate a % increase take the new figure and subtract the old figure. Divide the result by the old figure and then multiply by 100. When the base figure is zero and you attempt to divide by this your calculator will show this as an error. That is because it is impossible to divide anything by zero.

So, for instance, if a party increases its seats from 50 to 100 then 100-50=50. 50/50*100=100%. It has doubled its number of seats. If it increases from 20 to 100 then 100-20=80 and 80/20*100=400%. In the same way from 10 to 100=900% and 1 to 100 =9900%. You can see that as the starting figure decreases the % increase gets larger and as it approaches zero it will tend to infinity. 0.1 increasing to 100 would show an increase of 99 900%.

The answer to your question is, therefore, no.

We'll technically 1 is 100% greater than zero, but I was being facetious in the first place so it doesn't really matter. I guess I was making a roundabout point that for all the bluster, The Green Party are actually more influential in British politics

To be honest, I'm being lazy and not reading the links, but it seems odd (and against the charter) for the BBC to give two political leaders a platform without others. I'd presumed that BBC involvement meant Ed and Dave were going to be there

I think Nick Clegg feels he can gain a solid platform into the next election by making Farage and by extension, UKIP, look stupid on TV. I hop it doesn't back fire

Actually I think that 1 is technically 100% greater than 0.5

Pressure groups such as UKIP can obviously wield an importance in politics way beyond their representation in Parliament.

Nigel did invite Ed and Dave but they, quite sensibly from their points of view, declined the invitation.

Actually, it's the BBC who I fail to see the benefit for. They've been pilloried on here for not giving Farage a mouthpiece and when they give him a mouthpiece and he gets pulled apart by another politician, they'll be accused of stacking the depth against him. Up until now, Farage hasn't had to back any of his policies up because he's been left out of the debate but given the vagueness he's shown over his own parties policies and the fear of being shown up by him by the big 3, they'll have teams of researchers pick apart everything he's going to say before he says it. As Nick Griffin found out after his QT appearance, all publicity is most certainly not good publicity

As I've said elsewhere before, all UKIP are currently doing is guaranteeing a Labour majority at the next election; there's bound to be a bounce back to the opposition anyway and UKIP are taking far more votes from the blue side than the red or the yellow

One further thing, but will The Green Party have a place in this debate? They currently have 100% more Westminster MPs than UKIP and I imagine a greater share of the vote at the last GE so surely in the interests of fairness they should get a platform too?

2*0=0.   The Greens have one more MP than UKIP, not 100% more. Sorry, just me being pedantic again.

As far as I am aware Clegg challenged Farage on air and Farage accepted, hence the absence of Greens in the debate.

What has Clegg to gain ? Well he probably sees it as highly likely that he will be the leader, if they keep him on, of a very small party after the next election. Hence his desire to position himself as staunchly EU in the hope of a nice job in Brussels.

Well at least they'll be able to agree on something.

The irony of this is, this government have borrowed more in 4 years than the last Labour government did in 13 years!

That's to cover the interest on the debt that Blair and Brown racked up.

Simply pointing out that a win ratio is meaningless unless it takes into account the quality of the opposition. You quoted Cotterill's ratio as if it meant something on its own.

Not sure I agree with this Aizoon. It's all relative. If you're playing higher quality opposition in a higher league then you should be playing them with a higher quality squad of your own.

3 shots on target, 3 goals. Clinical.