The TV debates for the Westminster election will offer you a dazzling range of neo-con policies from right wing to very right wing. Conservative, Labour, Liberal or UKIP, any flavour of corporate neo-con control that you like. It is a kind of weird speed dating circle between Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Farage.
If it had been UKIP with thousands of supporters on George Square yesterday, does anybody doubt the rally would have received much more coverage. The decision about the election debates could not offer starker proof of my thesis that UKIP is an antibody produced by the establishment in response to voter disillusion with the lack of real policy difference between mainstream parties. Protest is to be diverted into a right wing channel that really offers no difference at all.
The fact that UKIP and the Lib Dems are to participate in the electoral debates, whereas the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP – all of which offer genuine alternatives to the neo-con narrative – are not, is indefensible. The SNP will win more MPs than the Liberal Democrats and the Greens will have more votes. UKIP have just won their first ever elected MP – which means they have finally caught up with the Greens. Given equal media access, I expect the Green vote would exceed the UKIP vote too – which is precisely the outcome the broadcasters are desperate to avoid.
The voters must not be shown that other choices, other visions, other policies are possible. You can choose any neo-con you wish.
The best way to drive the UK to the Right, is antagonise the ordinary voters who want simple and secure lives with accusations that their concerns are irrelevant or unfounded.
Jemand,
Do you mean that we ought to agree to stop foreigners coming in order to make “simple folk” feel secure?
Ever the opportunist.
Ukip leader Nigel Farage: ‘I’ll keep Tories in power to get EU poll next year’
Slippery Nigel Farage finally has admitted he would prop up a Tory Government if UKIP wins….
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-leader-nigel-farage-ill-4428121
Indian author and human rights activist, Arundhati Roy says: “You can’t change the system by joining it.”
http://rehmat1.com/2012/11/18/arundhati-roy-you-cant-change-the-system-by-joining-it/
Craig, you are a supporter of indefinite growth. I am not. I won’t scribble on about it, you have the world’s library at your fingertips regarding read up on the myth of endless growth.
Ordinary people know, as I do, that they are receiving a dwindling share of an ever shrinking cake. And the problems with resource depletion is trivial with the erosion of the environment. All of that is driven by a madness to grow, grow, grow. But all the stats show that the quality of life is on the slide except for those improvements provided by technological developments.
You don’t have to “stop foreigners coming in”. You can have as many tourists as you like but immigration needs to be regulated. Population needs to be stabilised. People’s feelings need to be respected and not abused by forcing them to deal with the front line of cultural conflict. Inviting massive numbers of migrants and forcing radical change on people is WRONG. It is selfish and it is most definitely corrupt as the wealthy gain much more at the expense of the ordinary. Why would you force cats and dogs into the same cage, watch them fight and then blame them for not getting along?
If you are not planning for a sustainable future for the UK/Scotland, Craig, then you are planning to fail.
“Why would you force cats and dogs into the same cage, watch them fight and then blame them for not getting along?”
Jemand, anyone attempting to portray locals and immigrants as different species is doing something very, very wrong. Look at yourself.
It’s an analogy, Craig. Sheesh!
Immigration is supported by the conservatives because it drives land prices up, drives wages down, produces a larger domestic market for higher profits and a larger tax base to squander on a voracious public service and military. They don’t give a shit about the myth of “multiculturalism”. They are interested in growing the false economy – bubbles that boom and bust leaving them with more and more. The wealthy don’t feel the effects of competing for limited housing. They don’t compete for jobs that desperate migrants accept with eroded conditions because it’s better than they’ve ever had it. They don’t compete for the best quality food or a seat on the bus. What does growing your population give you that you don’t have already?
What does growing your population give you that you don’t have already?
More people. People are a good thing. I like them. We also have a demographic that badly needs an influx of young working age people.
Totally agree, Craig.
UKIP were manufactured to contain the angry white population of England, and give them a ‘safe’ outlet to vote for.
Jemand,
Pandering to the base instincts of society by amplifying its insecurities through the perpetuation of the propaganda of fear is the reason why many “simple folk” misguidedly seek solace in parties like UKIP. The Tories are masters at this kind of fear mongering. However, the juggernaut has drifted so far to the right it’s the far right in the form of UKIP who are currently exploiting the political fall out emanating from the failure of the established Westminster elite to satisfy the crassest of voter demands.
The fact is, although the political capital resulting from the Westminster fall out, is instinctively the preserve of the traditional left, the fact that in places like ageing and bigoted Clacton On Sea it was actually the far right that benefited, is an illustration of just how persuasive the establishment propaganda is.
Of course, they came into their own during the latter stages of the referendum debate by pulling out all the stops. I still find it remarkable that the mainly elderly folk in Scotland (because that’s who they were) voted against their own interests.
Wrong answer Craig. More people is not a good thing in itself. Too many people are bad for the environment. Fish stocks are down. Biodiversity is down. Resources are being rapidly consumed and Climate Change is a by-product. Why would you want to fuel a rapacious consumer-industrial complex that chugs along demanding more people like a monster puffing toxic smoke?
What happens when your young working age people grow old, Craig? Can you find more migrants of young working age to attend to their needs? Or increase your birthrate? When does this Ponzi scheme collapse with a catastrophic destruction of the economy and the natural wealth of your land? Japan hasn’t succumbed to this madness, are they doing badly? Germany as a falling population. Is it bad for them?
You can dislike UKIP if you like,but they are certainly not Neo-Con!
Hopefully be they will be against Trident and Poodleism,too.
Jemand,
But you see, these people already exist. There are not more people – just more people here. And here, by and large, they can flourish better than where they came from. That is why they come. You just want them to quietly suffer somewhere you can’t see them.
Exactly. Which is one of the reasons the Establishment opposes Scottish independence with such vigour.
“You can dislike UKIP if you like,but they are certainly not Neo-Con!”
Are you being serious?
I can see I am outnumbered. Ideology and political dissonance trumps natural science. How does one fit a square peg in a round hole? You identify the hole as an ideological enemy that needs to be re-educated and intimidated into conformity. A right of dissent is implicitly denied. Refusal to accept the square peg results in accusations of a mythical disease called squarophobia. When the square peg cannot be pushed into the round hole, the hole is blamed for spoiling what could have been a utopian happy ending.
http://www.mostlyodd.com/death-by-utopia/
Jemand, just how far do you think the restriction of movement of people should be taken? For instance, should people from Caithness (which has a low population density) be prevented from moving to London?
My last comment on this, Craig.
Global overpopulation is a net effect, like Global Warming. It’s cold here but warm there.
Wrong.
Local areas can be overpopulated and it is not just related to people per area. It is people per resource.
In Australia, we are already well overpopulated. Yes, that sounds funny to someone who doesn’t understand that Australia’s water resources are our weakest link. We also have poor soils. But that doesn’t stop the populate to poverty policies of our crooked political establishment and economy. Poor people can’t afford housing. Is that fair? Is receiving comparatively well off migrants from overpopulated regions relieving those regions of their problems?
But really, you ought to take Sir David Attenborough’s word for it, not mine.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/11/after-david-attenboroughs-comments-on-overpopulation-are-large-families-irresponsible-3959856/
@Geoffrey.
Can you point me to the UKIP manifesto that folk are voting for?
Jemand
What on earth are you talking about? You are quite entitled to believe what you will, and post what you will. I happen not to agree with you. Several other people have supported your view, like Kempe and Canspeccy. You have not been either intimidated or prevented from expressing your opinion.
Jemand
The reason there are poor people is the terrible, and fast worsening, inequality of wealth. There are 100 billionaires in the UK. That is why we have very poor people. To blame immigrants is stupid and falls right into their trap.
Craig,
I think Jemand has a point. What immigrants to the UK seem to be attracted to is what neoliberalism brings in terms of economic growth. But such growth is finite. Looking at it from this narrow neoliberal perspective, London and the south east is the exemplar of opportunity which is why London is the melting pot it is. I for one am very proud to live in the most multi-ethnic and diverse cities on the planet. But I also recognise the flaws that emanate from unlimited EU immigration that neoliberalism encourages and what Jemand rightly highlights.
“My thesis is that UKIP is an antibody produced by the establishment in response to voter disillusion with the lack of real policy difference between mainstream parties.” The thought of many of us, I guess. Strange that I have only come across that thought expressed here and by you, Craig. What on earth those gatekeepers in the press are doing is anyone’s guess. Thinking for themselves and the rest of us is clearly not even close to it.
Normally I wouldn’t even bother with you anymore, Clark, since you’ve proven yourself to be disingenuous.
Two things –
1. Answer : I don’t like restrictions, but overpopulated areas should have a migration balance in favour of a net gentle decline until a justified sustainable population is achieved. That means people still immigrate, just fewer of them than emigrants. Currently most of the world’s poor can’t get to move throughout the world as they do not have the wherewithal for the expensive and sometimes dangerous journeys. But those with privilege get to travel and are welcomed with open arms by liberals as if THEY were the real poor.
2. Question (no answer required) : How far do you think population growth should be taken? Be realistic, you can’t have 100 trillion people, that’s stupid. Make up a number if you like and then describe why the population will peak. Is it natural? How? Is it unnatural? How and why? You can’t grow forever, but you can ignore the wellbeing of future generations.
Craig, massive immigration widens the wealth gap. You can’t cram people into cities to live like rats as they do in Hong Kong. Of course, for tourists and the wealthy, Hong Kong is “vibrant” and “cultural” and “bustling with excitement”. Not for poor people it aint.
And internal migration is the same. China has experienced internal migration to the big smokes with the same ill effects. Housing shortages and worker exploitation. That’s what comes with a massive population that you can pick and choose your workers from.
Its ridiculous that the SNP the third largest political party in the UK, haven’t been invited to the debates, the BBC will be very pleased with themselves, they’re beneath contempt.
_________________________
Meanwhile the Westminster politicians are close selling off another state asset, (which was probably paid for by the profits of North sea assets) Eurostar, thing though may well yet be held up as an inquiry will be held over the debacle that was the sale of Royal Mail.
Eurostar, which is 45% owned by the UK, 55% owned by France, and 5% is owned by Belgium, will line the pockets of many, and help keep the war effort fully funded until everyone in Syria, and Iraq who doesn’t agree with the UK/US are dead.
Jemand,
I tend to agree with you. As somebody who instinctively leans left, I regard stable societies as being concomitant to planned and regulated ones. I thought to aim of the E.U from the outset was to encourage sustainable and even relative growth throughout all member states, not to create uneven economic growth ghettos where people are disproportionately drawn to London and the south east of England.
The Scottish National Party has described the UK government’s Command Paper as inadequate and “behind the pace” of what the people of Scotland want, as it even falls short of the promises made in Westminster’s ‘Vow’ two days before the referendum.
Nowhere in the paper is there mention of “extensive new powers”, which was what was promised in the Vow. In addition, the paper says in the Introduction that more powers for Scotland will have to be considered “in the round” with constitutional change across the UK – which was not mentioned in the Vow.
The SNP said the paper will not only disappoint the 1.6 million Scots who voted Yes in the referendum, but also those who voted No on the promise of “extensive new powers” for Scotland.
_____________________________
Why am I not surprised, by this.
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/oct/westminster-command-paper-fails-reflect-vow
Daniel, “stable” is a word that politicians and business people don’t like. “Sustainable” is also a word that is disliked except when it relates to a growing economy and the obscene wealth of anonymous shareholders.
What we should be seeking, as a supposedly civilised generation, is growth of quality of life for people within a stable, steady state economy. People are becoming increasingly alienated from one another in this ever competing rat race and the single most patent factor that can be rationally addressed is being either ignored, denied or actively refuted.
n transmitting President Richard Nixon’s orders for a “massive” bombing of Cambodia in 1969, Henry Kissinger said, “Anything that flies on everything that moves”.
As Barack Obama ignites his seventh war against the Muslim world since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the orchestrated hysteria and lies make one almost nostalgic for Kissinger’s murderous honesty.
As a witness to the human consequences of aerial savagery – including the beheading of victims, their parts festooning trees and fields – I am not surprised by the disregard of memory and history, yet again. A telling example is the rise to power of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, who had much in common with today’s Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). They, too, were ruthless medievalists who began as a small sect. They, too, were the product of an American-made apocalypse, this time in Asia.
According to Pol Pot, his movement had consisted of “fewer than 5,000 poorly armed guerrillas uncertain about their strategy, tactics, loyalty and leaders”. Once Nixon’s and Kissinger’s B52 bombers had gone to work as part of “Operation Menu”, the west’s ultimate demon could not believe his luck.
_______________________________
Excellent article by John Pilger.
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/october/11/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything-that-flies-on-everything-that-moves.aspx