Farage vs Clegg - EU Debate

The title is a little mis-leading as it should more properly say Farage vs the Elite.

On Wednesday evening, Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) participated in a debate with Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrat party.  They debated issues around the UK's membership of the European Union (EU).  Farage wants the UK to exit and Clegg wants the UK to remain a member albeit he 'understands' the need for reform.

The politicians that were present or commenting on TV, provided differing views of the outcome of the debate.

The Conservatives (coalition partners with the Lib Dems but the only one of the three major parties to offer the prospect of a referendum) scored the debate as a 'score draw' - both sides landed some good punches but  overall a draw.

The Lib Dems, unsurprisingly, saw a 'hands down' win for Clegg.

Labour decided to pursue their soundbite campaign about the 'cost of living crisis'.  That they couldn't offer much in the way of an opinion is not entirely surprising since the recent ramblings of their leader, Ed Miliband, on the subject, would keep a gaggle of Vienna psycho-analysts occupied for years trying to decipher the meaning.  The Miliband babbling in answer to 'Will Labour hold a referendum' amount to ' Umm, err, Umm, maybe, only if, yes, no' etc.

UKIP, again unsurprisingly, saw it as a victory for their man and also for their party.  Seeing their man at the 'top table' with the grown-ups.

Although I was in a time-zone four hours in advance of the UK, I watched the debate.  I scored this as a victory for Farage.  I wouldn't disagree with the YouGov poll which scored Farage at 57% and Clegg at around 39%.

Clegg accused UKIP of pursuing 'scare tactics' (for shame, Nigel!) over an election pamphlet that suggested that 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians were about to take-up their rights and flock to Britain.  Since the combined total populations of these countries is less than 29 million,  score one point to Nick.  Farage's response was to highlight the fact (which wasn't then contested) that 485 million people in the EU do have the unfettered legal right to come to and settle in, the UK.   The subtext was (unspoken of course, because UK politicians have not yet come around to being open about immigration) that the UK welfare system and free healthcare offered economic migrants a strong incentive to take-up the opportunity offered by the 'open border' currently presented.

Having accused Farage of 'scare tactics', Clegg then introduced some of his own.

Some 3 million UK jobs were on the line if the UK exited the EU.  Major companies would shut down their UK operations if we left.  The rationale appeared to be that our European trading partners wouldn't buy UK manufactures once we left.

Let's deconstruct that for a moment.

This seems to suggest that European consumers and businesses purchase UK goods and services as some kind of sympathetic action - they are 'helping out' the UK by buying things from us, that they don't really need and at prices that they wouldn't normally pay.  Really?  Call me Euro-sceptic but I think that the goods and services we provide to our European  trading partners are wanted by them because they meet our partners need's in terms of quality, delivery and price.  And that is exactly how it should be!

I guess that the further inference is that, in a fit of pique, our trading partners, who are mostly non-governmental organizations, would collectively decide to boycott UK goods and services, to teach the UK a lesson.  Really?

These would be the same organizations that collectively export something like 50% more to the UK than the UK exports to the rest of the EU.  So they would jeopardize their very large export market to aid the Euro-project?  Really?

Oh, and those big business, like Siemens and Hitachi and Nissan - they manufacture in the UK mostly because, within the EU, the UK probably has the least restrictive labour laws.  Why would you set-up a business in France, for example.  In that country, a company doesn't so much employ a worker, as adopts them!  Again, call me Europ-sceptic but I believe that these multi-national companies set-up manufacturing plants and business where it suits them to do so.

Again, Clegg was in scare-monger territory around the need to negotiate so many new trade treaties.  And that the UK would be doing so, form a position of weakness.  While I do recognize that Britain no longer has an empire (honestly, I do!) I also know that we have become a very significant trading nation.  We are ranked as the 6th largest economy in the world and so I reckon we might know a thing or two about how to sign treaties.  We are also a member of the World Trade Organization and the Commonwealth, so don't think that we would start from a ground zero position!

Overall, I think that the risk to the UK economy from exiting the EU is way overblown.  Disruption, maybe a little, but that would come from any re-alignment, indeed, that has happened every time the EU has admitted a new member!

Farage strayed into confused territory when he talked about Human Rights legislation, since this is mostly governed by the European Court of Human Rights, a non-EU body.  Clegg responded with praise for the Euro Arrest warrant and the resulting capture and extradition of a 7/7 bomber.  The inference was that without the EU, Italy would not have arrested and extradited the then suspect.  Really?  Farage's response was to bring in the farce surrounding Britain's 12 year long efforts to rid ourselves of this dangerous man.  Again though, ECHR rather than EU.

Farage struck a very resonant chord when talking about Britain being governed by the British rather than unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.  Even managing to pull in a reference to Magna Carta to illustrate that the British are not exactly novices in the field of representative government (We, the people, to some folks!).

In conclusion,
Clegg didn't persuade me that the UK's continued membership of the EU was, on balance, of benefit to the UK.  Farge's charge that the UK was contributing £55 million, to the EU, every single day resonates, especially when 'austerity' (otherwise known as living within your means) cuts are occurring in the UK!

Some might benevolently view Clegg's performance as 'courageous' in that he stood up and was counted.  Call me jaundiced but I saw his performance as something like his job interview for a senior, unelected but very well paying, tax-free role, in the EU elite, when he leaves the UK political stage.    

All said and done, to those UK voters, I suggest you vote UKIP in the May 2014 Euro elections and vote Conservative in the May 2015 General Election.  The former will send shivers down the weak spine of the establishment politicians and may promote a more muscular demeanor on EU issues and the latter is the only realistic way that UK electors can have a hope of a referendum on a possible UK exit from the EU.

Taxing matters

If you can accept that Nick Clegg's so called 'wealth tax' is a contribution to the debate, then you will note that tax is starting to feature more and more in the current political and media discussions.

Clegg and, earlier Cable, have prattled on about a 'mansion tax' or a 'wealth tax'  If I understand the latter this will be some kind of tax on assets.  If it is, then as Anthony Hinton pointed out, in the London Evening Standard, this then acts as a bringing forward of Inheritance Tax and, for those elderly people, who are asset rich but cash poor, would present a very difficult situation.  The 'mansion tax' would seem to present the same issues.  So trying to spend tomorrow's money, today.  You might even call it, borrowing from the future!

I have tried to find out 'who pays, what' as regards Income Tax.  That is, what percentage of the working population pay what percentage of the total taxes?  We hear that something like the top 10% of earners currently contribute more than 50% of the total tax take.  Is contribute the right word when it is compulsory?
I digress.

Do these Lib Dem 'rocket scientists' and their socialist colleagues in the Labour Party, have an absolute number in mind for the top tax rate - for their so called 'fair tax'?  That is, have they modeled their tax and tax 'plans', to see just how much revenue would actually be raised?

I sense (and stand ready to be proved wrong) that the only way that further tax will be effective, is if the higher rate is spread wider - so more and more of the masses in the 'middle classes' are brought deeper into the fold - I just don't think that the 'rich' can be  taxed sufficient to feed the beast that is government spending.

 I come at the tax question from a different angle.  I believe that the most effective way to stimulate the economy would be to cut taxes.  If there are any ITEM members out there, maybe they could model this?

Raise the tax threshold to £15,000, abolish the 45% rate, reduce the 20% rate to 15% and the 40% rate to 35% and reduce fuel tax by 5% and eliminate the green levies being applied on fuel provision.  Give an NI holiday to employers who take on new employees and hold it for three years.

Of course this will cost money - that is the great maw that is government will initially  receive lower direct income - and so to overcome the gap, the choice is either real cuts in government expenditure or more QE.  The proper and courageous solution is for cuts to be made but given the Lib Dems baleful influence on government policy we can expect 'bleeding hearts and stumps' to be used to persuade politicians to avoid the work for which we employ them and the decisions that we expect them to make.

If there are leftists out there who can prove that tax cuts will not stimulate the economy and/or that further government spending will, then do so, otherwise, join the campaign to get tax cuts implemented as a priority.

If there are any Conservative MPs that understand the founding principles of their party, then perhaps they can push their party to act like Conservatives!



 

  

Clegg, Gay Marriage and 'consultaton'

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister (remember) has made a farcical attempt to retract his painting of anyone opposing so called gay marriage as bigots.  This is the same Nick Clegg that castigated Gordon Brown because GB called an indignant member of the public, a bigot, during the last election campaign. 

I can understand that Clegg thinks it 'right on' to support this policy (or maybe he has been told to support it by the wife?) but why try to follow the example of Lynne Featherstone and further stifle debate, by insulting genuine opponents, who hold dearly felt opinions?

Featherstone, you may remember, launched a 'consultation' process advising that no matter what the outcome of this process, they (the government) would go ahead as planned.  I asked at the time, what was the point of a consultation exercise that would have zero bearing on the issue being consulted upon but answer came there none.  I know, at least she is being honest as it is unlikely that any consultation process actually changes anything but..........

I must be a bigot since I thought we lived in a representative democracy and my view had some value - seems not, if it isn't in 100% agreement with Clegg.

I have written on this proposed legislation before and predicted that the so-called 'we won't force churches to marry homosexuals ' assurance would not stand-up to a ECHR challenge and that is exactly what most commentators are now saying.  Some have suggested that the only way for churches to avoid charges of discrimination would be to not have any weddings no heterosexual and therefore no homosexual.

Sounds like a plan to me!  I can just imagine Cameron and Clegg and Salmond going up against the massed ranks of all those people who consider a church marriage absolutely required.

Come on CofE and the Catholic hierarchy, let's see some leadership!  Make the people see the consequences of this stupid and unnecessary legislation.

Oh and by the way, the economy is still in the toilet.  Let's not worry about that though!

So what now, for the Coalition?

Firstly, both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems should understand that there is a message and it isn't n opportunity to put some kind of spin on things.

Yes, the last time that these seats were contested, these parties did well and so, the 'pendelum' effect means that this time they were almost bound to lose seats.  But, why both parties?  Why so heavily?  And, why, at a time when the public have moved towards understanding the need for austerity, (to at least varying degrees) would they move to ever higher spending Labour?  This is the same Labour that have never apologised for their economic incompetence!

It seems obvious to say, but the only answer is that the electorate that voted, wanted to punish the Coalition.  I don't believe it is because of the alleged cuts (check out the actual level of 'cuts' and you will see that public expenditure is being reduced at a far too low rate, if at all.)

No, I believe it's because the Coalition is fundamentally flawed.

Cameron and Clegg are committed to trying to do what is right for the country. 

• Cameron thinks this requires being magnanimous and a 'gentleman' - so he doesn't push Conservative policies down Clegg's throat - it's not the 'done thing'.
• Clegg was the photo-genic candidate for leader that could add votes for the Lib Dems and not scare the voters, while at the same time not getting in the way of the unruly Lib Dem MPs and party activists who wanted to continue to pursue their 'student' politics approach to life at Westminster or in local town halls.

So we have Cameron, bending over backwards to be nice to Clegg and Clegg unable to control his party.

Result?  The electorate see through this and see that the majority Coalition partner (the Conservatives, in case you have forgotten) are fumbling and have no coherent policy.  They have, to use the spin-meister phrase, no narrative. 

What do they stand for?

• If it's the 'Granny Tax' or 'Pasty Tax' why can't these be clearly enunciated?
• Why aren't we seeing power being reclaimed from Europe?
• Why is the UK supporting the failed Euro project?  Don't bother trying to say it's because they are a major trading partner and the rest of that.  We are throwing good money after bad and trying to deny the inevitable - the tide has turned and it's time to get off of the beach!
• Why is time being wasted on changing the definition of marriage?  Where is the groundswell of public clamour for this?
• Why are we funding and keeping our UK armed forces in Afghanistan?
• Why is parliamentary time to be wasted on reform of the House of Lords - I understand the Lib Dems want this but why can't the Conservatives adopt the Nancy Reagan response and 'Just say No!'

I could go on (and on and on) but you get the idea.

We have a Conservative led Coalition that seems to want to do everything that is un-Conservative, to kowtow to their junior partner and seems to have no idea, other than the retention of power, exactly what it is trying to do, in Government.

When will Conservative MPs understand that their complete acquiescence and obeisance to the Lib Dems means that they will pay the price at the ballot box, for their lack of a spine?

UKIP anyone?