U-Kippin' across the universe

Looks like, the UK might go U-Kippin' across the universe, sung to the tune of star trekkin'.
It's life Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it.
Recent bye-election wins for UKIP leave rather a lot of political questions hanging.

There are no questions. People are fed up with the existing political poncers regardless of which of the three usual parties are available. They say everything and do nothing and there's no difference between them. UKIP provide an outlet for frustration and anger. They haven't got the answers or even the policies that purport the same. It's a joke. One which will last for the next few years as the rest extricate themselves from each others buttocks and smooth out the slime. It will settle down again in the 2020's once we are over the hump and resigned ourselves to the fact that we are no longer one of the major powers and that to survive we must give up acting like we still had an empire and that other people care. We have other marvelous attributes that will stand us in good stead against all-comers in the future. We should recognise those, improve on them and ensure we have others who think the same way. It's not rocket science.

Didn't Britain resign itself to loss of empire and no longer being a leading power in the world about a hundred years ago? Some people take a while to catch up.

Actually No. I was schooled on 'Empire'. Most of our curriculum was based upon 1900 - 1920 literature and although we lived for the most part through the break-up of the 'Empire' our parents and grandparents still had the mind-set of colonial Britain. The public school was even worse in its clinging to the past as most of those (which include most politicians over the age of 30) was even more vociferous as to our 'glorious' history and in consequence still believe we have the same 'clout' internationally. It's a generational thing. My kids, now approaching their 40's, have had a different and more soundly based education on the international situation and 'should' have no leanings in that direction. But it will take some time for the politicians at the top to die off and a more reasonable bunch of misfits to replace them.
We have two things in our favour. First it appears that the nation (UK) might just have the sense to hold together and -Two - we are advanced enough to keep abreast of the up and coming nations as the technological age progresses.
There's safety in numbers and sticking together with like minded peoples. We have enough enemies in this world without trying to go it alone and either creating more or neighbours who 'don't care'.
One should know one's limitations and not fight battles one cannot win. Hey ho -

The very last final retreat from even the illusion of British empire, world power status and influence was, or should have been, from Suez in the 1950s.

Safety in numbers? Not really in the circumstances, depends on the numbers, who they are and what they want.

The questions hanging in UK politics now are mostly about how the parties will re-arrange themselves in response to the arguably overwhelming problem of mass immigration now and in the near future.

All the main parties appear rather more unbelievable, discredited, crumbly and splintery than usual.

Mr. Cameron's speeches and posturings about changing the rules of the Eurozone may have more to do with him trying to establish an "I told you so" legacy than any chance of a real deal.

Indeed the first 'real' indications of the 'illusion' came during the Second World War when at first we couldn't control the war on the European mainlands and then proceeded to lose colonies left, right and center to the Japanese Empire. As luck would have it India wasn't invaded and thus the Crown Jewel wasn't immediately gone.
When one cannot defend one's territories one cannot lay claim to ownership - rightly or wrongly.
But as you say Suez was only symptomatic in the diagnosis and should have been a good indicator.

Safety in numbers. Perhaps the devil you know as the devil you don't or who may have changed with the passage of time.

Europe is a safer bet than trying to claw back past loyalties which were thrown away in the past.

There are no deals with Europe, the majority of which are new nations and have yet to put their heads above the parapet. No-one there is going to rock the boat for us let me tell you.

The only pressure we can use is internally with the welfare system. Hopefully we will get it right.

Meanwhile the economy will grow on the backs of the people, new or recent or old. Wages will continue to depress in order to satisfy the need for jobs for workers (from wherever) and profits for re-investment or to satisfy the fat-cats. Differentials will get bigger. Rich and poor will continue to widen and expand and only when the demand falters will wages begin to move upward at a rate commensurate to the costs of everything else. It is all ultimately unsustainable. Europe will collapse first. Nations will leave in order to satisfy their own peoples demands (which will be no better than before). The richest and most profitable will try and keep together which will in turn lead to bitterness on and inside borders (which will still be there) of adjoining countries and the Third World War will reduce the populations again - but not sufficiently. Hey Ho. Man. So depressing.

No! He didn't say "Start wrecking across the Universe."

Organisations like UKIP. Radical and easy solutions. Have a habit of attracting the more outlandish of people with simple solutions that rest easily on the conscience. Usually right wing and ill conceived. They have a habit of telling lies, the bigger the better and more believable, in order to win support. Which is all very well until the more radical/criminal elements get the upper hand - by which time it is always to late to back-track.
They are dangerous even in today's pseudo-democracy like that which prevails in this country at the present time.
There are NEVER easy solutions. Nor can they be cured at an instance.
Voting for such idiocy is criminal in itself. It's delusional. The consequences of which can be dire for everyone, not just the immigrant.
'Wrecking across the Universe' is but a step beyond 'Kipping across'. You have been warned.

The apprehension UKIP may turn out to be something wierd and head off in a destructive direction is not much different to the same fears about the main parties, all seem unstable, devious and at odds with what most people would want in a government.

Immigration is the issue that has changed the political, social, cultural and physical landscapes.

UKIP may turn out to be a party of government, or just a political tendency, bit early to guess as yet.

The craving for 'change' has an insidious side to it. Change is all very well if taken slowly and with care aforethought. Unfortunately a vast majority of any nations populace want 'jam today' - regardless, and are quite prepared, when given the opportunity, to be reckless in their choices. Such thoughtlessness whilst understandable is dangerous and has lead to marked violence and unrest when either the populace or the 'men in power' feel or become threatened with the outcomes. Too many of our population have been divorced from politics over the past few decades in the belief that whatever they do won't make a difference and that, regardless, everything will continue as before anyway. It doesn't take much to start a fire - and once lit - to become a huge and possibly uncontrollable problem.
Each and everyone, over the age of eighteen, have a duty of care. But who's listening?

Britain is not a 'natural' part of the european superstate, pulled into it mostly unwilling and by degrees, starting with the 'common market'.

The things most people have noticed about our membership of the E.U. is an annoying mix of metric and imperial measurements, and waves of immigrants.

Committed, positive membership of the E.U. would have meant adopting the Euro. It never happened, disconnect from politics generally is what has happened.

Historically, still recovering from the effects of the two world wars, the UK never really sorted itself out as a country to itself, the interplay with international events, end of empire and entry into the common market took centre stage.

As we don't 'naturally' belong to mainland europe, and our cultural heritage is of defending our freedom from European kings and dictators, it's difficult to see where we go now with our membership of the E.U.

The popularity of UKIP is probably to do with all sorts of people wanting to be what they are, British, and to take it as it works out from there.

Wanting to be British is one thing. Wanting at the expense of being side-lined is quite another.
One doesn't cut off one's nose to spite one's face.

Immigration (from the 1950's onwards) has been seen as a vital part of keeping the economy alongside others and in many cases one step ahead. There are of course limits to the amount of people this small island can take before the actions defeat the objective and we get 'overkill'. I'm sure that our governments are not that stupid as to endanger the objective before reacting and rectifying. How this is done, with our present commitment to the European model, has become a conundrum as the 'rules' (of the club) have not been set for such a scenario.
That basically goes to show how inept the European Parliaments (and officials given the job to set those rules) have been.
Negotiations to balance the problem will in the end provide for acceptable 'new' 'standing orders' in order for the 'club' to continue on its purposeful way. Of that I have no doubt. Meanwhile we make the best of the situation without stamping feet in frustration and throwing the baby out with the bath water - or voting in a stupid/irrational manner. Softly, softly catchee monkee.

Negotiations to control freedom of movement within the E.U. look destined to fail. Europe is very diverse and complicated, with many pressing problems demanding attention.

Immigration here has substituted for organised opportunity and motivation of and for the existing infrastructure and post thatcher population, stimulating short term boom, leaving too much to be done, coped with and paid for in the long term.

Quite right, impatience, or voting for change for the sake of change is shallow. There are long term things that need to be resolved, the social and economic fabric looks threadbare.

Europe has patched itself up after the banking collapse, but the underlying fractures are still there, looks a bit wobbly. The UK can't afford another and yet another wave of mass immigration. With the best of attitude and intention, it doesn't make sense. In the circumstances, maybe the UKIP type view will be a considerable part of the fractured political setup.

No blame attaches to the immigrant. It makes no difference the motive. Man will do whatever other men let him do, especially without adequate sanction.
Voting for shallow, somewhat mysterious candidates of a somewhat mysterious political party is a very dangerous occupation again especially when the next Parliament will be there for the next five years during which time the 'less well intentioned (or misguided)' can wreak havoc. I don't believe in making the same mistakes that others of other nations have made. I steer well clear of 'nationalists' 'God freaks' and 'anyone who offers me jam today'. They are all dangerous liars in my book. And always less than well intentioned. I wouldn't let them get a foot in the door in the first place. We will survive all this mess and things will level out in due course. Meanwhile it will be traumatic and difficult for a few years. Huh - So what's new!!! Keep smiling - even if you do look insane to others.

There is a mood of 'look back in anguish' as the various enquiries uncover failures of British society and government.

Do our politicians and political parties understand how much their credibility has crumbled?

UKIP looks no worse a bet than any other party at the moment, but yes, it looks pretty ropey.

If UKIP got into power it would be colonised by our existing politicians, just with a different colour tie, or hairstyle.

An abrupt exit from Europe might be traumatic, perhaps we could just back out by degrees ?

Every step out of the E.U. if taken cleverly, could bring advantages to the UK.

Excuse me posting again after my last post, but now the forum has less than a handful of readers, it's an ideal opportunity for me to be alone with my thoughts.

A bit like desert island discs, but, without the music, or the interviewer, or the audience.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/93454/former-labour-leader-of-rochdale-council-fears-ukip-will-win-heywood-and-middleton-seat-in-general-election

Mr. Lambert fears Labour have lost the seat to UKIP. Presumably that means a lot of people are hoping UKIP will win. Hopes and fears, or just plain fed up?

Not entirely convicned there is a lot of difference.

Colin Lambert is obviously concerned that there will be insufficient self-interest to attract the typical H & M Labour voter. Elsewhere, Labour supporters are complaining that the the neauveaux regime in Rochdale Metropolitan Labour are favouring County Borough rather than Middleton, as happened previously. UKIP are not promising anything other than some good old jingoism.

I thought the idea of an election was to select the candidate who would best represent the interests of the constituency. In my book neither UKIP nor Labour do that.

Rochdale could do worse than re-elect the man they already have. Better the devil you know in your case.

However - I predict another Conservative government but badly hung. It's time we learned how to hang the barstewards properly. Perhaps then we might, just might, get some sense prevailing all round.

Happy New Year. I hope you have a good 2014 'cause this one's going to be hell.

Paris isn't far away, those of us who like a quiet and peaceful life may be finding it more difficult if 2015 goes on like this.

As I said previously in my last post - It all lies before us. Nothing will be a surprise. We just go on and make the best we can from it. Cheers.

On that theme, the news is dominated by the massacre by Islamic terrorists in Paris.

The Crime Commissioner for Manchester has issued a statement in response.
http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/93521/statement-following-terrorist-attack-in-paris

Our relationship with Europe is called to the agenda again, and may effect the way UKIP and it's policy to break with the E.U. is viewed. UK culture does have principles in common with France, certain freedoms, freedom of speech.

The slaughter was about cartoons of Mohammed. Amongst the various comments, it has been pointed out that people who are so offended by such cartoons that they are incensed to commit mass murder, are incompatible with French or European society, and should not choose to live in Europe, it simply doesn't work.

That does seem a practical point. Perhaps some sort of psychometric 'offence' test to see how offended people are by drawings of Mohammed and other religious figures could be included in citizenship tests?

If potential citizens were shown a series of such drawings, of a humorous nature, and their reactions noted, those who started to froth at the mouth, growl and hiss, search for weapons, go into muscle spasms, clench and unclench fists, strike out at those around them or exhibit other indications of extreme offense, stress and murderous reaction could be advised to consider emigrating to more suitable places?

No reasonable person, journalist or otherwise wants to induce actual murderous psychosis in their audience with a few strokes of a pen, but European culture does presently have and very much value the continuing right and freedom to lampoon and caricature all religious, royal, celebrity, political or other figures of power, wealth and authority. It's difficult to see how European civilisation could cope, or what direction it might take, if such basic freedoms were abolished or denied.

Your assessment of the facts are well founded. However I find the 'citizen test' solution to be flawed when it comes up against the propensity of humans to confound at will when it suits their purpose.
One has to remember that many of these deluded 'lunatics' are country born. The fault if any lies primarily with parental upbringing i.e. the messianic teaching of religions - and the consequent warping of the same by less than well intentioned clerics and fundamentalists in later stages. It's nothing less than a form of brainwashing for ongoing control and power and should (if I had my way) be outlawed for children under the age of 16.

We have been here before with this problem and its arguments. We reap what we sow - and visa versa. A never ending process of delusion and tragedy for many.

My parents were wise enough to see that their own doubts on the subjects of religion were such as to no longer insist on our attendances to 'churches' beyond the age of 12 years old when (I suppose) they thought we were old enough to understand and decide for ourselves. But not everyone has that choice. Nor were we subjected to a constant barrage of religious dogmas which I suspect lies at the root of most fundamentalism.

Freedoms come in many guises. One should be the freedom to rationalise and decide for oneself from birth - not at the whim of 'supposed' the great and the good and the elders. Sad world still.

The 'citizen test' idea loosely references Tony Hancocks' classic, 'blood donor' sketch. Somehow a sense of humour still has value.

The problem as you describe, Atlas, may be in the minds of 'home grown' extremists. However, it would be prudent, in the light of events, not to allow identifiably dangerous people coming from abroad to also blend into the general population, where that can be avoided.

Do we want a 'fortress Europe'? Ideally no, but the world situation is not looking ideal at all at the moment. Security forces are dealing with regular terrorist plots, things need to be kept as manageable as possible.

We 'know' we are at war. Humanity's fundamental flaw. Which means we should have the commonsense to appreciate the dangers amongst us and the will and resources to attend it.
In wars it is the duty of the citizen to be vigilant and aggressive towards dissension of the state and to inform the state of potential dangers or wrongdoers if they become know to one. To fail to do so supports the enemies actions and as such is an act of treachery. We safeguard ourselves by safeguarding others. Only a fool would do otherwise. It is therefore incumbent upon those communities wherein such 'enemies' may hide to expose them. I haven't the slightest doubt that the majority of those who would wish us harm are known to others. It is up to our society to police ourselves and with the help of our security establishment weed out the bad growth. For 'all' our sakes.

Aye, UKIP in 'Trubble at t'mosque'.
http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/94058/simon-danczuk-angry-at-ukip-candidates-criticism-of-him-in-local-mosque