Eco Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 I think until you actually live here for any length of time you just do not realise, how the French just ignore anything that they have signed up to if and when they realise it doesn't actually benefit them and also there is no culture over here where you would even bother to sue the government for any misuse of power or even civil/human rights type issues, firstly you would struggle to find a lawyer to take it on, secondly the judiciary will almost always back the government at Supreme court level, thirdly there is little or no legal aid for such things and fourthly even having failed at the French legal system, a trip to the court of human rights would be doomed to failure if the government just ignores the ruling. I think it's known as laissez-faire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 I think until you actually live here for any length of time you just do not realise, how the French just ignore anything that they have signed up to if and when they realise it doesn't actually benefit them and also there is no culture over here where you would even bother to sue the government for any misuse of power or even civil/human rights type issues, firstly you would struggle to find a lawyer to take it on, secondly the judiciary will almost always back the government at Supreme court level, thirdly there is little or no legal aid for such things and fourthly even having failed at the French legal system, a trip to the court of human rights would be doomed to failure if the government just ignores the ruling. Serendipitously, someone just posted this on my Facebook feedhttp://www.newsweek.com/fall-france-225368 Sounds like the French are in La Merde... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted January 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 I think it's known as laissez-faire No it's not. Certainly not in the context of laisez-faire in English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 No it's not. Certainly not in the context of laisez-faire in English. Isn't a gallic shrug and generally ignoring things they don't agree with part of their 'laissez faire' attitude ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted January 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Serendipitously, someone just posted this on my Facebook feedhttp://www.newsweek.com/fall-france-225368 Sounds like the French are in La Merde... And the Germans eagerly lick their lips, waiting for France to become so week it can no longer defend itself against the oncoming German jackboot. War seems inevitable as Angela Merkel windmills her massive German sausage mockingly. British PM Ed Miliband pleads for appeasement, and lets the Germans have Corfu and Crete, in lieu of Greece paying its substantial debt. In the Pacific, the Chinese gaze longingly at Taiwan, and the unexploited natural resource under Australian soil. The world holds its breath and holds out hope that tomorrow will bring a hero. Out of the shadows Britain finds hers. Ready to lead the nation to victory should war come. He calls himself Nigel. Nigel Farage...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 And the Germans eagerly lick their lips, waiting for France to become so week it can no longer defend itself against the oncoming German jackboot. War seems inevitable as Angela Merkel windmills her massive German sausage mockingly. British PM Ed Miliband pleads for appeasement, and lets the Germans have Corfu and Crete, in lieu of Greece paying its substantial debt. In the Pacific, the Chinese gaze longingly at Taiwan, and the unexploited natural resource under Australian soil. The world holds its breath and holds out hope that tomorrow will bring a hero. Out of the shadows Britain finds hers. Ready to lead the nation to victory should war come. He calls himself Nigel. Nigel Farage...... You wouldn't remember this? ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 This is already UKIP policy except that incomers will need a 5 year contribution period. Come on Chipdawg, I can see you coming round to Nigel's point of view. I sense that Robbo is wavering as well, that could be a couple more votes for UKIP next May. You know it makes sense. I dunno Marshy. Isn't a flat rate of tax one of their policies? That would suit myself and Mr Farage no doubt, but I think it'd be a bit of catastrophe for the British people as a whole. But as I said above, they do speak a lot of sense on immigration. There's an interesting documentary coming up on the BBC about the British Social Attitudes survey of UK views on migrants. There's a thread elsewhere about it, but it says the sort of things I'd said when I was an employee at the corporation. I was banging my head against a brick wall of course, because not many of the decision makers had grown up in a small country factory town, nor did they even know anyone who did production line work and was affected by these incredibly rapid workplace changes. For many there, mass migration merely meant cheaper cleaners, child-minders and easier to book plumbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 I dunno Marshy. Isn't a flat rate of tax one of their policies? That would suit myself and Mr Farage no doubt, but I think it'd be a bit of catastrophe for the British people as a whole. But as I said above, they do speak a lot of sense on immigration. There's an interesting documentary coming up on the BBC about the British Social Attitudes survey of UK views on migrants. There's a thread elsewhere about it, but it says the sort of things I'd said when I was an employee at the corporation. I was banging my head against a brick wall of course, because not many of the decision makers had grown up in a small country factory town, nor did they even know anyone who did production line work and was affected by these incredibly rapid workplace changes. For many there, mass migration merely meant cheaper cleaners, child-minders and easier to book plumbers. From what I've read they would like to simplify the system and move towards a flat rate of tax. Hand in hand with this of course is their policy of substantially raising the personal allowance to above the designated 'living wage' which would take many lower paid workers out tax altogether. This is a policy long espoused by libertarian organisations such as the Adam Smith (that man again) Institute. There does seem to be a lot of evidence to support the idea that progressive tax rates which hammer the rich only succeed in lowering the tax take despite many people's gut instinct on this. You only have to look at the example of France where they are deserting the country in droves to see what can happen. Anyway Robbo if it were to benefit you substantially you would have the option of charitable giving or the establishment of a Red-Robbo Foundation for the benefit of whatever takes your fancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 From what I've read they would like to simplify the system and move towards a flat rate of tax. Hand in hand with this of course is their policy of substantially raising the personal allowance to above the designated 'living wage' which would take many lower paid workers out tax altogether. This is a policy long espoused by libertarian organisations such as the Adam Smith (that man again) Institute. There does seem to be a lot of evidence to support the idea that progressive tax rates which hammer the rich only succeed in lowering the tax take despite many people's gut instinct on this. You only have to look at the example of France where they are deserting the country in droves to see what can happen. Anyway Robbo if it were to benefit you substantially you would have the option of charitable giving or the establishment of a Red-Robbo Foundation for the benefit of whatever takes your fancy. Ah, 'Libertarian Organisation'. Boys clubs for rich people who don't want to pay tax because they can afford things like private health care and don't need to use public transport All models relating to flat rates of tax and the 'hammering' of the rich as you put it are predicated on the idea that you can't get rich people to pay the tax they're supposed to. Why not?! I agree that the French model is way too far- no one should have to pay over 50% of their wage to the state as a an absolute starting point. But why shouldn't the wealthy pay more than the poor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted January 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northamptonshire Red Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Currently watching Secrets of the Scammers on Channel 4, enough to make you want to vote UKIP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin1988 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 From what I've read they would like to simplify the system and move towards a flat rate of tax. Hand in hand with this of course is their policy of substantially raising the personal allowance to above the designated 'living wage' which would take many lower paid workers out tax altogether. This is a policy long espoused by libertarian organisations such as the Adam Smith (that man again) Institute. There does seem to be a lot of evidence to support the idea that progressive tax rates which hammer the rich only succeed in lowering the tax take despite many people's gut instinct on this. You only have to look at the example of France where they are deserting the country in droves to see what can happen. Anyway Robbo if it were to benefit you substantially you would have the option of charitable giving or the establishment of a Red-Robbo Foundation for the benefit of whatever takes your fancy. I'm not quite there yet, Marshy, despite what some might try to suggest... ;-) I'm with Chipdawg on this one, closing loopholes effectively - with international agreements - is the way forward, not simply shrugging our shoulders and saying "the rich don't pay tax". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Seems a hell of a lot of people in the comments agree with Nigel. It's just getting those people to vote, and I'm guessing that if they can be bothered to sign up to a newspaper and comment, they can be bothered to vote as well. I'm detecting real panic in supporters of the older parties. The Lib Dems are of course dead, and this decade will se them erased for ever. Thanks to Nick Clegg! Dream on. If you seriously think immigration/Europe will be the no. 1 priority for voters come election time think again, it's the economy stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Any need for the 'stupid' comment? I thought my reply to you was 100% polite. Please read it again. And then try to understand how the two are mixed. He's quoting Bill Clinton. Do keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Seems a hell of a lot of people in the comments agree with Nigel. It's just getting those people to vote, and I'm guessing that if they can be bothered to sign up to a newspaper and comment, they can be bothered to vote as well. I'm detecting real panic in supporters of the older parties. The Lib Dems are of course dead, and this decade will se them erased for ever. Thanks to Nick Clegg!The dilemma for possible UKIP voters though is that a vote for UKIP is, in the vast majority of cases, a vote that doesn't go to the Tories. So in most, if not all, constituencies, voting for UKIP will effectively be a vote for Labour. A move to proportional representation would solve that by actually reflecting the votes of the populace, rather than reflecting the carefully drawn constituency boundaries that Labour and The Tories have carved up between themselves in recent years... PS missing that Bill Clinton "It's the economy, stupid" quote almost deserves a WHOOSH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid To be fair, it wasn't Clinton himself it was one of his strategists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Any need for the 'stupid' comment? I thought my reply to you was 100% polite. Please read it again. And then try to understand how the two are mixed. Sorry not aimed at you personally, as others have pointed out ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Dream on. If you seriously think immigration/Europe will be the no. 1 priority for voters come election time think again, it's the economy stupid. A BBC poll (and we now know, they have never taken the issue seriously) says 3 out 4 people believe that immigration is a very important issue and although i'm sure you are correct the economy will be the most important issue, but even you have to accept that any political party that ignores those figures in it's manifesto pre election, will be in trouble, I mean even red Ed has realised that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 A BBC poll (and we now know, they have never taken the issue seriously) says 3 out 4 people believe that immigration is a very important issue and although i'm sure you are correct the economy will be the most important issue, but even you have to accept that any political party that ignores those figures in it's manifesto pre election, will be in trouble, I mean even red Ed has realised that. All quite true, and people are more likely to understand and believe promises about immigration than about the economy. What I want to know is why the establishment suddenly says there's a problem with immigration, when they've been denying it for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 All quite true, and people are more likely to understand and believe promises about immigration than about the economy. What I want to know is why the establishment suddenly says there's a problem with immigration, when they've been denying it for decades. Probably because they would have to admit failings in their education policies, I mean counting people and then putting that information into a computer, I don't think I know anyone who could do that, do you?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 A BBC poll (and we now know, they have never taken the issue seriously) says 3 out 4 people believe that immigration is a very important issue and although i'm sure you are correct the economy will be the most important issue, but even you have to accept that any political party that ignores those figures in it's manifesto pre election, will be in trouble, I mean even red Ed has realised that. Yes, it appears it will be more of an issue than in 2010 when both main leaders pussyfooted round it, for differing reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Yes, it appears it will be more of an issue than in 2010 when both main leaders pussyfooted round it, for differing reasons. The tories deep down wanted the debate but backed off because apparently as the BBC is more or less admitting now, it might be considered racist FFS, just to debate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 The tories deep down wanted the debate but backed off because apparently as the BBC is more or less admitting now, it might be considered racist FFS, just to debate it. I think it was more like this was when Camoron was in his cuddly hug a hoodie phase and was trying to play to a wider audience. Will be interesting to see how he plays it this time, lately he's been 'nasty' Dave appealing to core Tory vote, which won't win election, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I think it was more like this was when Camoron was in his cuddly hug a hoodie phase and was trying to play to a wider audience. Will be interesting to see how he plays it this time, lately he's been 'nasty' Dave appealing to core Tory vote, which won't win election, in my opinion. I seem to recall that early in the campaign with Labour running scared about their pathetic record on immigration, they made several references to tories mention of immigration and racism and the tories appeared to back off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I seem to recall that early in the campaign with Labour running scared about their pathetic record on immigration, they made several references to tories mention of immigration and racism and the tories appeared to back off. That's sort of what I was saying ! I remember the '05 election where the tories played the immigration card and failed dismally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 That's sort of what I was saying ! I remember the '05 election where the tories played the immigration card and failed dismally. Well I suppose the next 16 months and the outcome of the title of this thread will decide whether it will fail again. PS:- I suspect I know where my money is going to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.