Changing my Vote

4 May

I am a betrayed voter.

Let me put that in some context. I was born in 1982, the same year as Maggie Thatcher showed why she was the last person in British politics with any guts; she stood up to the fascist junta of Argentina and recovered the Falklands for Britain. A handful of years later, I have vague memories of the Poll Tax showing Thatcher’s weaknesses; the lady was not for turning, whatever happened! Thatcher was overthrown by her own party and replaced by the grey John Major, who lacked both her drive and bloody-minded determination.

I was becoming politically aware when Tony Blair won a smashing election victory. It didn’t take long for me to start noticing problems. Blair was all style, no substance; he lacked the long-term focus of a Thatcher or Churchill, too keen to make himself popular rather than make the hard decisions. It was a lethal combination. When the going got tough, Blair stuck his fingers in his ears and pretended that nothing was wrong. I don’t know if Blair believed his own spin doctoring or not, but I do know he was a disastrous Prime Minister. Where is the logic in getting Britain involved in two wars and then not trying to actually win them? Blair was eventually pushed out of office and replaced by Gordon Brown, who tried to be a dour Scot. Brown lacked both the charm and competence to handle the office.

And then there was David Cameron.

I won’t lie; there was a time when I thought David Cameron had come to save us all. When the Expenses Crisis blew up (I don’t think either Blair or Brown were directly responsible, but Blair (at least) encouraged MPs to take all they could get by setting a very poor example) Cameron was the only major party leader who showed true leadership. The Tories took their lumps – I think every party took a beating as more and more expenses were uncovered – but they came out looking better than either Labour or the Liberal Democrats. I expected Cameron to win the election. Instead, he was forced into a strange alliance with the Liberal Democrats.

Cameron has been something of a disappointment as Prime Minister. To be fair, the aforementioned alliance with the Liberal Democrats limited his freedom of action, but he failed to deliver many of the policies I wanted. There was no referendum on EU membership, no strict cap on immigration, no major political reform, continuous and downright horrific cuts to the armed forces, a utterly stupid move to add VAT to eBooks and a complete failure to get to grips with rising extremism on the streets of Britain. At best, the UK can be said to have ambled along; at worst, few of the lessons learned in a decade of Labour mismanagement can be said to have taken hold.

I feel betrayed. I’m not the only one.

The major choices in the coming election would seem to be Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats and SNP. A Conservative government would be more of the same, Labour seems to have learned nothing from the Blair/Brown years, the Liberal Democrats engage in too much wishful thinking and the SNP has been showing some disturbingly illiberal traits recently. We had a referendum on Scottish Independence, the Scots voted NO … and the SNP refuses to accept that the issue has been settled for the foreseeable future. Like the EU’s unelected elite, the SNP would like us to keep voting until we give them the answer they want.

Bah. A party that has so little respect for democracy deserves nothing but scorn.

And then there is the UKIP.

The Mainstream Media (a term I shamelessly borrow from America) has been roundly mocking the UKIP, calling it a party of racists, fascists and nationalists. Sure, there are assholes in the UKIP’s ranks, but that’s true of every party. Take a look at the MPs who lived high on the hog before the Expenses Crisis, then ask yourself if the UKIP’s handful of bad apples is any better or worse than those in other parties? They’ve certainly done a great deal less damage!

I spent the last few days reading the UKIP’s manifesto (summery here, complete here). There’s a lot of good stuff in it, policies I believe to be sensible, if not urgent requirements. I think I’m going to be voting UKIP.

Can the UKIP deliver, if elected?  I don’t know – but i don’t trust any of the larger parties any longer.

The downside is simple.  As I noted earlier in my blog, taking my vote from the Conservatives and giving it to UKIP may weaken the Conservatives and put a Labour/Liberal Democrat/SNP government into power. The Conservatives have noted that for themselves. That is true … but really, why would I vote Conservative when the Conservatives have failed to deliver the goods?

If you’re unsure who to vote for, ignore the media, read the party manifestos and then consider their past record at delivering on their promises. Britain’s future deserves no less …

… And if you don’t vote UKIP, at least know why you’re making that choice.


33 Responses to “Changing my Vote”

  1. David P. Graf May 4, 2015 at 11:18 pm #

    Is it really practical to consider leaving the EU? I honestly don’t know the answer to that question.

    • ruopp May 5, 2015 at 7:14 am #


      To answer your question Just check how Swiss economy is and despite the fact that EU countries are our biggest clients and we’re not part of EU, we’re doing quite fine, and remember that our unemployment rate was and still being the lowest in the continent.

      I’m sure that UK can do a lot better without the EU.

      • Dennis the Menace May 5, 2015 at 8:22 pm #

        Yes…and note your low unemployment rate AND that you don’t have a national minimum wage law, too.

      • ruopp May 6, 2015 at 4:36 am #

        Indeed. But do you know why we don’t have a national minimum wage?

        Well, in 2012, the left-wing parties and the Swiss labor union presented a bill to establish a national minimum wage (around CHF 4’000.-) we voted this bill on may 18, 2014 and we (the people) refused the bill by 76.3%. Oh no, we are not fools we just think that it’s better to negotiate directly with our employers.

        Minimum wages can be a double-edged sword. While they guarantee a minimum they cut all possibilities for direct negotiation with the employers and they depend on the parliament to raise it.

        You see, even if we don’t have a minimum wage we don’t have strikes because of low salaries and we also have 287’146 cross-borders commuters From France, Germany, Italy, etc. (stats from Dec. 2014 – and s0me 20+% of our population is foreign people. Do you really think we would have so many foreign people or Cross-border commuters if our salaries were bad? On the other hand we had some scandals about foreign subcontractors (France and Italy) that were paying almost half of the salary a Swiss perceived to do the same job. Once the government found out these subcontractors were obliged to raise their employees salaries or loose the contract. Definitely we don’t need national minimum wages.

    • George Dixon May 7, 2015 at 4:39 pm #

      Is it practical for a multiNational body, which ranges from Germany to Greece, to impose one set of universal rules and one currency?

      Is it practical to have unelected, and thus unaccountable, scribes and idological social engineers oversee economies and generate ‘one size fits all’ rules for a set of national characteristics as divergent as exist in the EU?

      In order to appear too insane to go to fight Troy,
      Odysseus did the following:
      “And so when he learned that spokesmen would come to him, he put on a cap, pretending madness, and yoked a horse and an ox to the plow.”

      Perhaps the Horse was named ‘Germany’,
      while the Ox was named ‘Greece’.

  2. Dennis the Menace May 4, 2015 at 11:39 pm #

    The UK is becoming one big island of Detroits and Baltimores and Atlantas and Watts. And the pols not only won’t stop it, but will deliberately continue to pursue policies that will speed up that transformation. Britain isn’t even remotely the Britain of Thatcher or Churchill. At least in the US we have the Red States to flee to and some vestige of constitutional federalism to protect them.

    Voting doesn’t do anything nearly as well as active resistance by participating in counter-economics. This is the Agorist path to Libertarianism, for example.

    It was also the path taken in establishing the Solar Union, if I need reminding you.

    You can vote for UKIP…but thanks to Duverger’s Law regarding ‘first past the post systems’ that means the most likely outcome will be that the leftwing running will win for sure. That is because a vote for UKIP is the same in the US as voting for Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. And as long as Labour throws a few bones to the Conservatives, they’ll be happy. Same thing happens in the US and the RINOs who control the Republican Party. It even has come out in the open that the GOP Speaker of the House is Pelosi’s bitch even though she is the one who is supposedly ‘out of power’.

    And if UKIP wins, it is doubtful they will do as they say. Either their members who are really in it for the power and the chicks will be subordinated to the Establishment or because of ineptitude. Just like how the new Greek PM put into office by far left wing populists is paralyzed and just reacting, reacting and reacting. I do believe his party had a manifesto, too. So what? It will be entertaining for a UKIP government, I will give you that. But that is all that is most likely to happen.

    Sorry to be so glum. But those are the facts. We need to be able to economically colonize space and the oceans, big time.

    • George Dixon May 7, 2015 at 4:13 pm #

      Your perspective is, sadly, correct. In the US we have a similar problem, see: your US city list.

      When you consider that almost US 50% of voters have no IRS tax liability, draw from the tax pool for food, housing and medical care…
      …and can vote for anyone who promises to tax the roughly 50% of voters who DO pay taxes, while increasing social program benefits… 

      you know that our Democracy is broken.

      “when the people figure out how to vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic”. benjamin franklin

      Obama administration agency numbers:
      Social Security, Medicare and non-Military Federal Retirements, consist of obligations, promises, made by politicians to living Americans…now.

      Those promises cannot be fulfilled without the money it costs to fulfill them. There is not enough money to do this, which is what an “Unfunded Obligation” is.

      The amount of Tax Revenue required to keep the promises of JUST those programs, to fulfill the obligations to a break even level is $8 Trillion per year. That is 1/2 of the total GDP of America annually.

      A political promise, codified into a Law is not the same as the ability to keep that promise.
      Promises which cannot be kept will not be kept.

The current system is not sustainable, has no imaginable way of becoming solvent… and then you add ObamaCare.
      Voters who have been told that “Tax the Whatever”
      is all that is required have been lied to.

  3. misterjonez May 5, 2015 at 2:11 am #

    I haven’t thought about it extensively, but your reaction is much like my own when I felt ‘betrayed’ by the ‘right-wing’ in the USA.

    I was browsing a series of websites which catered to people like me (willing to emigrate, financially flexible, pursuing greater actual freedom, etc..) and I found a striking comment by one of the site’s founders. Essentially, he called the system of government (the Two Party System) in the USA the greatest magic act in the history of humanity. You have two ‘sides’ to nearly every issue, and they fiercely disagree with each other on those issues – so fiercely, in fact, that the voters get misled about what’s actually happening to their country and the rights afforded them within it.

    He used some simple math to show how the government has steadily increased in size over the past several decades, and that government leadership has been more or less split down the middle between the two parties’ representatives. It was convincing, and it was impossible to deviate very far from his conclusion that there is no hope for the system as it sits – not unless you’re genuinely satisfied with the current state of affairs and apparent trajectory of the system as a whole

    I still maintain that Reagan did many things right, but even he was only able to hold the government growth arc to a flat-line during the course of his tenure. Thatcher was also a powerful leader, from my limited perspective, who genuinely wanted to correct issues and reform problematic areas. But that could be nothing more than nostalgia for a time I never really knew, having been born in the year preceding your own birth year.

    When Obama was up for election the first go-round, I literally applauded the selection of John McCain – because I knew there was not a snowball’s chance in hell that he would win, and that Obama was quite probably the worst thing that could happen to American politics. I believed then, as I do now, that if reform was going to come to the USA then it was going to have to come after it’s worst nightmares had all been brought to life in the name of ‘equality,’ ‘social justice,’ and ‘progressivism.’ We’ve seen, however, that the impact he and his part have had is probably irreversibly harmful, so for me there is no longer a valid question which seeks to find the solution to, or how to correct, the USA’s myriad problems. The only questions worth asking, in my view, explore just how much longer the USA can maintain its status before finally imploding.

    I do hold out hope for the UK, though, because y’all aren’t confined to the Two Part System. I think there’s greater flexibility, in certain respects, to your system since there are more varied groups represented. This is a two-edged sword, obviously, since cause-of-the-moment-based political coalitions can rise and fall much more quickly than they can in the USA.

    As usual, I love reading your stuff, Chris 🙂

    • Duncan Cairncross May 5, 2015 at 6:56 am #

      Reagan was the biggest disaster to hit the USA ever!
      He grew your deficit by more than any other president
      Obama has actually shrunk your federal government!
      It is noticeable that each Republican president has increased your deficit by more than the Democratic presidents

      • Rook May 5, 2015 at 11:53 am #

        That’s sarcasm, right? Please tell me you’re being sarcastic. No one is that ignorant.

      • Dennis the Menace May 5, 2015 at 9:28 pm #

        “He grew your deficit by more than any other president”

        No. Obama has that distinction now.

        “Obama has actually shrunk your federal government!”

        What a pantload. Tel us, are you one of those professionally paid trolls who post propaganda like that or what?

        “It is noticeable that each Republican president has increased your deficit by more than the Democratic presidents”

        Love that BS. The debt increase has exploded under Obama. So how can deficits be claimed to be cut while the cause of the debt increase are deficits? The truth: Government pro-Democrat bureaucrats have fudged the numbers of what is deficit spending vs what isn’t. The growth in the debt levels prove this.

      • Duncan Cairncross May 5, 2015 at 11:10 pm #

        Dennis the Plonker
        Did you even look at your own graph!!!
        It shows (as I said) Republicans growing government much faster than Democrats
        YES – there is a jump at the start of Obama’s reign – it is the TARP passed by —– BUSH!!!
        Then Obama starts to drop the spending

      • chrishanger May 5, 2015 at 11:15 pm #

        Please don’t insult people on my blog, even if you disagree with them.



        My Site:
        My Blog:
        My Facebook Fan Page:

      • George Dixon May 7, 2015 at 3:58 pm #

        Gee, a Narrative beats Reality only as a hypothetical. Liberalism’s “Wouldn’t it be nice IF… ” is a failed ideology which over promises and under delivers. As to your debt ‘analysis’, try this:

        $10.6 Trillion:
        Total Debt When Obama Became President On January 20, 2009. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/9/15)

        Just 6 (of his 8) years later:

        $18.1 Trillion:
        Total Debt Under Obama As Of January 14, 2014.
        (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/14/15)


        $3.4 Billion:
        Average Amount Of Debt Added Daily Since Obama Became President. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/14/15)

        I believe Reality just ate your Narrative’s ‘Lunch’

    • George Dixon May 7, 2015 at 4:17 pm #

      Obama is the ultimate manifestation of Cloward-Piven

      “In a 1966 article in Nation, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, sociology professors at Columbia University, wrote that capitalism should be collapsed by overloading the government with financial demands that could not be met.

      The strategy is to collapse the financial system.
      The tactic is chaos. If a crisis does not exist, create one.
      The more chaos the better.
      The solution is always couched in empathetic words like “fair,” “equal,” “humane” and “just.”

      NOTE: “When President Bill Clinton signed the Motor Voter bill in 1993 Cloward and Piven were standing behind him.”

      (Motor Voter is basically same day voter registration,
      ‘vote early and often’)

  4. Duncan Cairncross May 5, 2015 at 6:50 am #

    Maggie Thatcher!
    She destroyed more British industry than the Luftwaffe!
    It took over 8 years before British industrial output reached the levels it was at before she crippled it!
    People blame unions – for every hour we lost due to union action we lost a week to managerial incompetence

    The Falklands
    The Argentinians had a history of sabre rattling about those islands, The normal RN response when they got heated was to send a destroyer or two down to count penguins.

    The Thatcher government told the admiralty to move it’s ships from that area
    – the only time they interfered with naval ship movements –

    The Argentinians then responded to that “open door” – suckers!

    Once Thatcher had managed to commit the UK to warfare she did a good job in handling it
    But the fact that she directly caused that conflict means all of that blood was on her hands

    • Dennis the Menace May 5, 2015 at 9:29 pm #

      Chris, can we get rid of this troll permanently?

    • George Dixon May 7, 2015 at 4:23 pm #

      “The Argentinians had a history of sabre rattling about those islands, The normal RN response when they got heated was to send a destroyer or two down to count penguins.”

      [History is best when it is accurate and complete.
      Recall who invaded where, and when?]

      To wit:
      “On 2 April 1982, Argentine forces launched the invasion of the Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas), beginning the Falklands War.
      The Argentines mounted amphibious landings, with the invasion ending with the battle and final surrender of Government House.”

      “Until their invasion on 2 April 1982 by the Argentine military junta, they had been governed by the United Kingdom since it re-established control over them in 1833.”

      “The invasion and subsequent occupation signalled the start of the Falklands War, which resulted in the islands returning to British control on 14 June 1982.”

      [Darn those ‘inconvenient truths’, eh?
      As well as Argentinian Penguin Commandos… ]

  5. ruopp May 5, 2015 at 7:07 am #

    Hi Christopher,

    I agree with your logic and think that UKIP for UK is the best choice. For a long time I’ve been a fan of Farage’s speech at the EU parliament, and every time I saw him being despise by his fellow MEP I knew he was right.

    Don’t think that if UK quit the EU things will change though. The big companies will start to scream out loud that if UK quit EU they will be in trouble, the economy will be ruined unemployment will sky rocket. I know this because here in Switzerland this exactly what happens every time we have to vote some important decision that can jeopardize the EU. The last one was about controlling immigration. We approved the control of immigration to our country (20% of our population are foreign) and we received threats of the EU one after another and they keep coming every day. Almost all politicians from the left-wing or center-right keep saying that we need to vote again. Others dare to say the the people is too stupid to take decisions and should be forbidden to vote.

    I don’t know if you’re aware but in CH we (the people) have the last word about anything that affects the constitution, we can even propose amendments (if we obtain 100’000 valid signatures it will be voted and if accepted change the Constitution). That’s how we escape from being another member of EU, we refused and since then the left is trying to makes us revote our decision.

    Remember about the Lisbon treaty when Ireland refused the first time and the EU goons made them vote again threatening them with severe economic sanction. No EU is not a democracy anymore and each day it passes it reminds me more and more the old USSR.

    Do all you can to make people see that if they keep in the EU path UK will end up as a 3rd world country (France is almost there)

    For the Americans it’s not better their politicians are sinking the country even Republican candidates to the White House acts like Democrats. Yesterday I watched a video of Sen. Ted Cruz and I was disgusted. I looked more like a show, a “mise-en-scène”. Yes he questioned DHS secretary but didn’t ask what Mr. Johnson was going to do to fix DHS mistakes, not only once.

    Sen. Ted Cruz Questions DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson at a Judiciary Hearing

    This is the quality of the new generation of American politicians. I’m sorry to say that but if we, the people don’t start to do the right thing we’ll be damned and everything our forefathers constructed for us will be doomed.

    • Dennis the Menace May 5, 2015 at 9:33 pm #

      “Yes he questioned DHS secretary but didn’t ask what Mr. Johnson was going to do to fix DHS mistakes, not only once.”

      Why should he? He’s the Opposition. Not the Opposition’s job to make it easy on the Government. The Brits have the same understanding when their PM is undergoing attacks by the opposition during Question Time that make Congressional committee queries on the executive look like love pats in comparison.

      Switzerland’s government system is more collegial than confrontational, so a direct comparison can not be made.

      • ruopp May 6, 2015 at 4:44 am #

        Why should he? He’s the Opposition. Not the Opposition’s job to make it easy on the Government.

        Could you please explain me how asking Mr. Johnson what they intended to do to fix their mistakes was making the Government job easier? It’s my understanding that when you ask difficult questions to your adversary you’re making his life worst and not better.

      • George Dixon May 7, 2015 at 4:27 pm #

        “Not the Opposition’s job to make it easy on the Government. ”

        Liberals have a habit of blaming everyone but their own.
        There is No Alternative for a Liberal’s ‘Bad Idea’.
        To offer one simply legitimizes the ‘Bad Idea’.

        In the US example:
        1) Republicans were not elected to enable Liberalism or Obama. The House went GOP in 2010 as a reaction to Liberalism/Obama for the two years prior. It did so to slow or stop Obama’s intentions.

        2) Did Liberals elect Nancy Pelosi or Bernie Sanders so they could rubber stamp GOP wish lists?
        It is childlike naivety to believe that someone who runs on a platform and is elected should then ignore that platform and enable the other side.

        Compromise is fine when dinner is at issue, or what to do on Saturday.
        In politics, compromise simply advances Liberalism incrementally.

        Democrats will gladly compromise all the way to 100% Liberalism.

        Compromise between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ simply advances ‘evil’ as it sullies ‘good’

  6. Peter Lindley May 5, 2015 at 9:58 am #

    Whilst Ukip will not in any way get to be the ruling party (this time), they will continue to grow over time as they have already proven. The Tory’s say if you vote Ukip, you are letting in Labour, so vote for them. Being a very long term Tory voter, (voted Maggie a long time ago), I agree with their comment but will still vote Ukip.

    The only way ANY party can get into power, is by we the voters, voting for them, not by tactical voting at a national level as Cameron wants us to do. So as Chris says, ignore what anyone tells you because EVERYONE, has an agenda. You have a couple of choices.

    1. Vote for whoever you are told to by your peers.

    2. Vote your conscience, irespective of others around you, it’s a democracy, right?.

    3. Properly check out every mainstream parties manifesto and actually think and make a choice about what is right, in your opinion, and then go ahead and vote.

    4. Not vote because none of them are worth it, maybe.

    5. Do as I tell you, and vote Ukip.

    Sorry, ignore number 5, only joking, well about doing as I tell you that is, the rest of number 5 you should actually do, sic.

    Actually, at the end of the day, you decide, no one else.

  7. Andy May 5, 2015 at 12:54 pm #

    In Scotland, we all have to use our vote carefully and put country before party. This can be viewed as true for both sides of the independence debate. Personally I am voting tactically for a party I would never in a million years have voted for in the normal scheme of things, but these are not normal times and we have to ensure the Union is secure.

  8. kiantremayne May 5, 2015 at 1:11 pm #

    There are a lot of sensible policies in UKIP’s manifesto. Unfortunately the two I disagree with them on are Europe (to some extent) and immigration – and those are the only two that a great many UKIP supporters care about. I’m a Eurosceptic but not a full Europhobe – I think on balance the benefits of staying in (just, still) outweigh the costs of leaving and I think Europe as a whole is better with the UK inside the tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in.
    As for immigration – I’m a son and a great-grandson of immigrants. Immigrants who come to a country to work are bringing the benefit of their labour to that country, the USA has prospered over two centuries from allowing just that, and I’m all in favour of it. I don’t favour people coming here and NOT working, but then I don’t really favour people who were born here and don’t want to work for a living either. Being anti-immigration is the wrong answer, so much as being anti-parasite would be.

    • ruopp May 5, 2015 at 1:42 pm #


      I have some questions for you: When did your parents and grand-parents immigrate to UK, was it before the EU dictatorship?

      If so, or not, tell me how many people you know that immigrate to UK before the EU? I don’t see UK as an anti-immigration country and I don’t think the UKIP wants to close 100% the borders. If you pay attention what they want is to control the flux of immigration as the people of my country (Switzerland) also do.

      I’ve read things about what’s going on in UK that terrifies me. Children in islamic schools learning to hate non muslims, charia being accepted as a substitute to the law. You want to see the videos? check on youtube or ask me for the links.

      No, the policy dictated by EU is just destroying the UK. In fact if you check out, all left-wing MEP wants to receive more and more refugees. Only in Italy is almost a 1000 per day. How much do you think a country can absorb refugees, 500’000, a million per year and what about the local population already in the country? Are you ready to give up your job to a refugee that EU wants you to accept? Are you ready to give your job to an Eastern-European that just came to UK looking for a better life and will accept to work the same as you for a lower salary? Get real, it’s not because you are from an immigrant family that you have to destroy the country you live.

      Oh, and about economy, explain me, as I said in my other comment, why my country is doing so well while EU is the most important partner and we are not member of the UESR (Union of European Socialist Republics)?

      UK has always been great before the EU thing, it’s commonwealth was not bad at all and now UK is sinking with all other EU members because they, better saying, their politicians have their own agenda and don’t give a damn to the welfare of the EU citizens.

      Just check this article from the Daily Mail in 2013 and tell me that this is what you approve.

      Better read the UKIP Manifesto again and decide what’s best not only for you but for your country.

      • kiantremayne May 5, 2015 at 7:31 pm #

        My father came to the UK before there was such a thing as the EU – he was a Lithuanian who left his homeland at about the same time as the Soviet Union , bringing with it an example of what a real dictatorship looks like – and after a fairly interesting set of adventures landed up here. My mother’s grandparents were an assortment of central and east European Jews who came here somewhat earlier than that. All of the above arrived here, worked hard and raised offspring who are both solidly British in our loyalties and aware of our heritage.
        When it comes to giving up my job to an immigrant – unlikely to happen. I’m fortunate enough to be secure in being very good at what I do and having marketable skills. In fact, if an immigrant arrived with the same skills my employer would hire him to fill one of the vacancies on our team, or the vacancy I’ve just created by accepting a promotion. I advise reading up on the idea of the “lump of labour” fallacy, because the assumption that there’s only so much work and that immigrants will steal it is one of the WORST arguments to make against immigration. There are some fair arguments to be made against immigration (as well as fair ones for it)… but that’s not one of them.

      • ruopp May 6, 2015 at 5:27 am #

        When it comes to giving up my job to an immigrant – unlikely to happen. I’m fortunate enough to be secure in being very good at what I do and having marketable skills. In fact, if an immigrant arrived with the same skills my employer would hire him to fill one of the vacancies on our team, or the vacancy I’ve just created by accepting a promotion.

        I’m happy for you. Not everybody has your chance.

        I advise reading up on the idea of the “lump of labour” fallacy, because the assumption that there’s only so much work and that immigrants will steal it is one of the WORST arguments to make against immigration. There are some fair arguments to be made against immigration (as well as fair ones for it)… but that’s not one of them.

        Fallacy, Worst argument? Are you talking about a short or long term?

        But you’re right there are worst things about uncontrolled immigration, like stretch-up all the country infrastructure raise on rent and properties prices. If you want a real example of what I’m saying just check Geneva with almost 50% of it’s population being foreign rents sky rocketed, transports are more expensive than in other Cantons. All of this because of the supply and demand principle.

        And here we’re talking only about legal immigration. What about the illegal one and all the immigration crossing the Mediterranean Sea from Africa and spreading all over the Western Europe? Until when do you think our countries will be able to absorb all this people?

  9. Duncan Cairncross May 6, 2015 at 3:05 am #

    Hi Chris
    As requested I will cease insulting Dennis

    Will you now request that he stop calling me a “Troll” and requesting that I be blocked from your blog?

    • Duncan Cairncross May 8, 2015 at 7:00 am #

      Hi Chris
      From your lack of reply do you believe that it is OK for Dennis to insult me but I must be totally polite to him????

      • chrishanger May 8, 2015 at 8:19 am #

        No, it isn’t ok. Both of you should be polite.

        Sent from my iPad


  10. George Dixon May 7, 2015 at 4:04 pm #

    I’d suggest that the core problem with politics stems from the precedent of a retained attorney, who (in theUS) can say whatever they wish without any libel law liability.
    Note that almost ‘forever’ a large proportion of Politicians (in the US) are Lawyers first.
    Inpolitics there is no liability for the promises or lies which a politician makes during a campaign.

    The electorate gets Sales presentation, by ‘salesmen’.  
    The voter picks the salesman who gave them a winning sales pitch.  
    The winner, an excellent salesman, now faces the actual Job they ran for.  

    The Presidency, the Senate, the House… all are legislative – managerial jobs. 
    There is not a single sales job for anyone who gets elected, until the next election. 

    Besides, they don’t ‘Do’ management… just sales.


  1. Neither Hot Nor Cold: David Cameron and Extremism | The Chrishanger - August 2, 2015

    […] noted my disenchantment with David Cameron before, as my readers know; this time, I find myself convinced that Cameron is neither hot nor […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: