You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
If you agree with their "policies" then vote for them. BUT do look behind the headlines, have a really deep think about what their proposals will ultimately mean.
Eg: Opt out of the Human Rights Act.
That is jumping on the media's bandwagon about the difficulty of deporting hate preachers adovcating terrorism. The other extreme, if the UK were to remove the Human Rights Act, would be the ability to create a police state with impunity.
UKIP is made up of anti Europe Tory backbenchers. Apart from Farage they are not smart enough to stick to party line when making comments in public. The only reason people are talking about them is because of the easy, sensationalist headlines they readily supply to the gutter press. The only reason people might vote for them is because the Daily Mail and The Sun tell them to.
If you want more Tory than the Tories, then go ahead and vote for them.
Also interesting is what's happening in the good old USofA - possibly the third Bush in power in 30 years. If not then they'll probably get a Clinton instead - and that's the country who most espouse democracy! Not so far away from the Putin/Medvedev swappsies
The Americans love political dynasties, Kennedys before now we have the Bush/Clinton.
People love to insult UKIP but with Junker today calling for EU armed forces it's more ammunition for the euro skeptics / euro exit brigade
@bigbkackshed opting out of the EUropean Human Rights Act and replacing it with a UK equivalent is an excellent idea, we as a country have one of the best records on human rights we can manage our own affairs
I'll say one thing for Farage - he's bang on the money that the established parties have lost touch with the electorate. He's got us talking about politics and change in a way I don't recall
This, I don't think UKIP are fielding enough candidates to win outright power. But if voting for them can bring real change to the system then that can only be a good thing. The two main parties are far too complacent in their ways.
We'll see what happens I suppose
I honestly think the only rotten eggs actually half capable of steering this sinking ship at the moment are the Tories. Voting UKIP is only going to serve to take numbers away from the Conservatives and therefore let Labour back in. God help us!
Voting UKIP will force the Tories to move further "right" to capture the UKIP voters. That, in turn, will let Labour move further right as they only have to stay a smidgeon left of the Tories to be seen as less extreme than them.
Well UKIP are going to do a fraction of the damage to the Tories that the SNP are going to do to Labour. I don't see too many seats where a UKIP vote will let Labour in and UKIP will form an alliance / vote with Conservatives. The real story of the election is going to be the SNP preventing a Labour win.
@bigbkackshed opting out of the EUropean Human Rights Act and replacing it with a UK equivalent is an excellent idea, we as a country have one of the best records on human rights we can manage our own affairs
Oh dear, you were doing sort of all right up until this point.
The real story of the election is going to be the SNP preventing a Labour win.
I thought that was Ed Millibands job?
1. There is no left wing political presence in the UK it died on the picket lines of the miners strike (other than possibly the SNP who are about to annihilate the mainstream parties in Scotland)
Note if the SNP ran in the North East of England they would probably win most seats
Don't forget though that their main point of existense is so that their socialist leanings can be deposited at Gretna. If you live in the NE of England you could have looked North in envy at a nation of millionaires due to an oil fund, because don't forget it is OURS. Get the begging bowl out. A few kindhearted McChe's might throw you a penny or two. Also don't think the SNP cares two hoots about the NHS outside Scotland. It thinks your healthcare is going to hell in a handcart, just don't drag us down too.
The words of Orwell spring to mind about the mantra the SNP spread to it's supporters,
"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
I don't think UKIP are fielding enough candidates to win outright power.
They wont even get to double figures. you can argue its the fault of FPTP but not even Nigel after a lock in thinks they can win power.
opting out of the EUropean Human Rights Act and replacing it with a UK equivalent is an excellent idea, we as a country have one of the best records on human rights we can manage our own affairs
If we have such an excellent record [ and what we propose will be equivalent] then why are you afraid to be judged by the Euro convention? We will pass and let prisoners vote and things like that wont we 😕
What an arrogant and retrograde position that is. It exists to protect us from the state it cannot be administered by the state. You would also find it hard to preach to the world when we cannot meet international standards ourself and we respond by running away and re writing the rules to suit ourselves. to spin this as excellent and managing ourt won affairs [ China, russia, Sauid and north kore etc like to do this BTW ]
I've not read all that up there other than the first few posts. I've got one of those black fellas who's a good mate working for me at the moment, he suggested voting for ukip, does that mean he's a racist?
You are not immune from racism due to your skin colour.
I dont know if they are racist or not.
emsz - Member
I say it's also a way to see how people react with each others
don't know what you mean
By being critical of others you (in general) also show the side of your thinking whether they are good or bad.
scotroutes - MemberWhy ask the question? If you've decided to vote UKIP based on their policies, then fine - go for it. Perhaps you're looking for someone to talk you out of it (unlikely based on your previous posts), or perhaps you're just looking to start [s]an argument[/s] a discussion for no reason.
No, I am not trying to start an argument nor am I trying to be a troll. Just want to confirm some of my own views that people are divided and that vent their thoughts on a "scapegoat" party and that mainstream political parties are rather out of touch with some people. Also try to spot the elitist views from various sections. i.e. they all have.
flap_jack - MemberOP - have you read about their cycling policy ? This is a pro-cycling forum. If you're pro-UKIP you've really no place here.
I think I heard that on BBC news but seriously there are many in society that hates cyclist which I find surprising but perhaps I have not driven long enough to understand the drivers hatred of cyclists. I have no problem with cyclists nor mopeds as I am used to them.
brooess - Member
He's got us talking about politics and change in a way I don't recall (I'm 42 this year).
😆 You are at your peak of your political reasoning/thoughts.
bigblackshed - MemberIf you agree with their "policies" then vote for them. BUT do look behind the headlines, have a really deep think about what their proposals will ultimately mean.
Eg: Opt out of the Human Rights Act.
I think the Human Rights Act is overrated as I really don't know when or where to apply Human Rights Act to be honest.
jambalaya - Member
The Americans love political dynasties, Kennedys before now we have the Bush/Clinton.
I find Bush to be a straight talker who can be biased in front of your face while Clinton is more stealth and a good speaker.
Junkyard - lazarusYou would also find it hard [b]to preach to the world[/b] when we cannot meet international standards ourself and we respond by running away and re writing the rules to suit ourselves. to spin this as excellent and managing ourt won affairs [ China, russia, Sauid and north kore etc like to do this BTW ]
I think other countries know how to differentiate between right and wrong to suit themselves. It is NOT for UK to preach/teach others the rights or wrongs. For example, the Bali nine where other nations try to intervene in other nation law ... would you let other countries detect to you their values?
@El-bent I am devastated not to have lost your approval. JY starts up again and we see just the sort of respomce to my posts UKIP gets,moots of insults and an unwillingness to take counter arguments seriously which is just the vacuum that UKIP has stepped into. The point on the Human Rights convention is the Euro part and a European Court overriding the UKs national interest.
UKIP are predicted to come second in 100 seats. That's a seismic shift and it's not hard to imagine what momentum that could give them in local elections or another GE if there is a hung parliament. All very scary stuff.
jambalaya - Member
The point on the Human Rights convention is the Euro part and a European Court [b]overriding the UKs national interest[/b].
That's the problem.
UKIP are predicted to come second in 100 seats. That's a seismic shift and it's not hard to imagine what momentum that could give them in local elections or another GE if there is a hung parliament. All very scary stuff.
100 seats 😆 That goes to show that mainstream parties are totally out of touch with people.
How can that be scary when "majority" are in the same boat or voted them?
I forgot to mention that, whilst delivering my leaflets earlier around the slightly damp Old Gaywood, I bumped into my UKIP adversary...
Was probably an amusing sight; me, the Green Party candidate, young(ish), short, white asymmetric hair do, looking a tiny bit alternative. Him; older, tie/shirt looking very UKIP...
To be fair, he seemed like a perfectly okay guy.
Rachel
The point on the Human Rights convention is the Euro part and a European Court overriding the UKs national interest.
We signed up to a treaty saying we would honour x and y. They only say we have failed to do this. In your scenario parliament could just re write the law for "national interest" and my human right is gone. Personally I think it is a good thing that the power of the state [ who freely signed the treaty] to infringe on my civil liberties is curtailed by a power separate from them. The national interest has been used in many states to oppress the people.
YMMV but no need to be [passively aggressively] rude to me just because I disagree with you. other has also disagreed but only I "started"
Yep - their economic policy is tit****ery.
allthegear - Member
... damp Old Gaywood, I bumped into ...
Sure you do, sure you do.
😆
Voting UKIP will force the Tories to move further "right" to capture the UKIP voters. That, in turn, will let Labour move further right as they only have to stay a smidgeon left of the Tories to be seen as less extreme than them.
To be fair, that's the only position that they manage to win elections from though... See the Blair years for info.
I think the Human Rights Act is overrated as I really don't know when or where to apply Human Rights Act to be honest.
So, you're not an expert but you think it's overrated. Classic. Typical kipper, you think everyone's as clever as you are.
The point on the Human Rights convention is the Euro part and a European Court overriding the UKs national interest.
Do you want to be part of the club? I'm sure you do for business purposes. Here are one set of the the rules you have to follow. The ECHR.
National interest. Really? We might as well replace those words with FOR THE KING! It amounts to the same thing to ordinary people(peasants).
UKIP are predicted to come second in 100 seats. That's a seismic shift and it's not hard to imagine what momentum that could give them in local elections or another GE if there is a hung parliament. All very scary stuff.
UKIP were annihilated at the last GE, its only when the tory party stated that "immigrants are bad" and we can't send "Asylum seekers" back to where they came from because of the ECHR, that it gave UKIP political capital.
This is the tory party's fault, and now UKIP have even more capital because Cameron has shifted further towards UKIP ideals, in an effort to save his party..but in process jeopardising the future of the UK.
Simple explanation of the Human Rights Act for you:
Without it, and some related acts around equality, I'd probably* be dead.
Rachel
* average life expectancy of a trans person in US is 26.
Why not use something like http://voteforpolicies.org to help you decide?
Which is proof that ALL the parties simply write down a load of stuff they think will attract votes. How much chance does a typical party on being voted in have of bringing those policies to fruition? But of course it's too late then.
Quite a lot of them are just generalised waffle with no real substantive intention.
Is voting UKIP wrong? Well... I'll just leave this quote...
"Ukip Candidate Victoria Ayling Asks What Happens 'When Renewable Energy Runs Out'"
[url= https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHWA_enGB610GB610&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=UKIP+candidate+asks+when+will+renewable+energy+end&spell=1 ]Google sources[/url] just so I don't seemed biased to any publication you can see its well documented.
Probably got words muddled to be fair but its only one quote of many, really do question where UKIP finds its candidates!
@allthegear, that's cool you are standing to Parliament. I used to work with a Green Party candidate who stood for election back in 1985 in Oxford. Was interesting talking to him about issues and the campaigns.
[quote=jambalaya ]UKIP are predicted to come [b]second[/b] in [b]100[/b] seats.
Which means there will be 545 seats where they don't even manage second.
Thanks. I probably identify more strongly with the social justice side than anything. There's nothing like having lead a life of many twists and turns to help you realise that we need to support everyone the best that we can.
flap_jack - MemberI think the Human Rights Act is overrated as I really don't know when or where to apply Human Rights Act to be honest.So, you're not an expert but you think it's overrated. Classic. Typical kipper, you think everyone's as clever as you are.
The question is do I have to be an expert in everything that put forward to me in order to reject or accept them? I mean do I have to be an expert in law? I think intelligence is also overrated when information processing is concerned.
allthegear - MemberSimple explanation of the Human Rights Act for you:
Without it, and some related acts around equality, I'd probably* be dead.
Rachel
* average life expectancy of a trans person in US is 26.
I can assure you everyone will die at certain point in time. It is the way you die that matters most. If you die in your sleep that is the best to go and anything other than that may not be a peaceful death. Death is a journey and it is the way you face death that will free you. However, if you apply scientific views then you will cling onto life for as long as you can because of the assumption that it is the end. i.e. carbon, no more. Not advocating suicide btw.
allthegear - Member
Simple explanation of the Human Rights Act for you:Without it, and some related acts around equality, I'd probably* be dead.
Rachel
* average life expectancy of a trans person in US is 26.
I can assure you everyone will die at certain point in time. It is the way you die that matters most. If you die in your sleep that is the best to go and anything other than that may not be a peaceful death. Death is a journey and it is the way you face death that will free you.
That is not what Rachel said, or meant, and you know it.
I think intelligence is also overrated when information processing is concerned.
😯
intelligence is the ability to process information.
bigblackshed - Member
That is not what Rachel said, or meant, and you know it.
Aarrgghhh ... I must have misread something.
Anyway, I re-read it again. Why are transgender people prosecuted I don't know because where I come from they are considered as 3rd gender and we see them everyday. Nobody laugh or poke fun or harass them in anyway or form.
Junkyard - lazarus
I think intelligence is also overrated when information processing is concerned.
😯
I know I know ... it's like saying human beings have the ability to be consistently rational when their rationality is limited. You cannot be know it all you know. You may be able to process information better than some but you are incapable of being consistence in digesting all possibilities you know. If you can you call yourself living god even machine cannot cover all possibilities if the person who programme it does not possess the knowledge of all possibilities.
Why are transgender people prosecuted I don't know because where I come from they are considered as 3rd gender and we see them everyday. Nobody laugh or poke fun or harass them in anyway or form.
Does North Borneo have different laws to the rest of Malaysia - how does that work ?
[i]"Discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people is pervasive in Malaysia. In September, Human Rights Watch issued a report “I’m Scared to be a Woman”: Human Rights Abuses against Transgender People in Malaysia that focused on the impact of state-level Sharia (Islamic) laws that prohibit cross-dressing. The report revealed that transgender persons face arbitrary arrest, physical and sexual assault, imprisonment, discriminatory denial of health care and employment, and other abuses. Three transgender women challenged the Sharia ordinance on constitutional grounds in the state of Negeri Sembilan and on November 7, won their appeal in a major victory for rights in the country. However, government prosecutors are expected to appeal the decision."[/i]
http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/malaysia
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/24/malaysia-transgender-people-under-threat
No its like saying if you are intelligent you can process information better than someone who is not intelligent
I dont think this is a radical or controversial point tbh.
I struggle with long sentences.
im voting ukip. not saying its a 'perfect' party but things cannot remain the same in this country.
if you vote for any of the others you are in for another 5 years of the same bullshit.
if ukip get a foot in the door the others will have to pull their shit together.
..or maybe they wont.
I struggle with long sentences.im voting ukip.
Sometimes the auto replace just nails it 😉
Anyway whats the worst that could happen, massive and messy divorce with the EU after a hideous campaign of straight banana, bendy cucumber and shooting people who say 1lb of apples.
A lurch to the right closer to the US approach
Worst of all would be a UKIP coalition partner, I can't see them rolling like the Lib Dems. On the plus side most would probably be forced to resign within a couple of months for opening their mouths.
[quote=cheez0 ]if you vote for any of the others you are in for another 5 years of the same bullshit.
I can think of worse things...
ernie_lynch - Member
Does North Borneo have different laws to the rest of Malaysia - how does that work ?
Ahh ... I see the religious police. For whatever reasons this is a rather messy rule because it is only applicable to those people in that particular religion. Most in Borneo are Christians but that is changing. 😕
Which is one of those things that the act fixes, it's a great thing.
Yes
if ukip get a foot in the door the others will have to pull their shit together.
What makes you think that?
What makes you think that?
Because once they have a foot in the door, they mat barge through. The big 2 parties won't sleepwalk into the next election. The SNP took 40 years to get from a fringe crackpot party to nearly breaking the union.
UKIP could do it in 10.
Cameron and Milliband are doing the same as many on here. Mocking and eyerolling and shaking there heads.
Come May there will be a reality check. They need to have a better plan to put folk off UKIP than what they are currently attempting
Aren't the shadow cabinet and the media always keeping the leading party in check, and not allowing any major changes without a massive public outcry?
This to me means no matter which party is in power, they will roughly follow the same path, and it doesn't matter who's in charge, as nothing will really change in the end.
@ScottCheggYou could have a point there, if it results in an honest discussion of the issues of immigration and the EU. What is more likely though is that if UKIP were to get some significant number of MPs then the main parties (in fact the Conservatives) would have to give concessions to them on immigration in exchange for support on other issues. In fact this is what is depicted on Borgen (UKIP = "Freedom Party") so it must be true.
Well. It's not illegal.
But neither is marrying your cousin.
Because once they have a foot in the door, they mat barge through
What? Like the Lib Dems? Having got a sniff of power and having to come to some accomodation with another party, they now find themselves the pariah of British politics.
Does North Borneo have different laws to the rest of Malaysia - how does that work ?
The piece said it was a local law, so yes it seems they do. Plenty of countries have different regional/local laws and certainly different interpretations/implementations. Easy to imagine Borneo could have different laws than mainland Malaysia, plus then you have the majority Indonesian part of the Island plus Brunei
Which means there will be 545 seats where they don't even manage second.
@scotroutes but 100 second places is a huge breakthrough for what was very much a niche/one man band party. That's certainly a result the Greens would be proud of and can't be far off the Lib Dems.
@DrJ - I am not sure what concessions the Tories could give on immigration, EU law overrides our own and we have no control. The past 5 years have shown that despite Tory pledges to control numbers you can't actually do so. I think the main UKIP agenda item would be a binding EU in/out referendum with regards to immigration.
UKIP are racist, misogynist, homophobic pieces of shit and if you vote for them so are you.
but 100 second places is a huge breakthrough
Its progress but I think they need to transform them to wins for it to be a breakthrough less than 5 Mps wont translate to that much power.
IMHO their main problem is at least the same % of the population hate them as support them and many people [ as this thread shows] would not only not vote for them they dont think much of those who do vote for them. Its hard to see how they can get higher than now, due to this, and FPTP may well limit them to [ millions of] more votes than the SNP , the lib dems ,DUP and Plaid Cymru etc but much fewer MP's.
I think this is their zenith and their big success will be securing a referendum from the Tories. i am not sure they can achieve that but we will see
[img] 
[/img]
UKIP are racist, misogynist, homophobic pieces of shit and if you vote for them so are you.
So if you already are a racist, misogynist, homophobic pieces of shit, there's only one choice for you.
@DrJ - I am not sure what concessions the Tories could give on immigration, EU law overrides our own and we have no control.
I don't think EU law overrides ours as regards immigration from outside the EU, how many asylum seekers we admit etc., and anyway other countries (Denmark, Germany) interpret EU law more harshly wrt immigration than we do.
Germany- not sure that is true. w eare often told other countries "interpret" the rules differently - interesting meme as it portrays us as honest and the rest as dishonest] - but its rarely true and usually just things we have heard so often we start to believe it - not at dig at you at all DrP the drip drip of anti EU BS is endless and we all fall for some of it myself included.
1993-present[edit]
In the mid nineties, only about 5 percent of the asylum applications were approved and processing and appeals were so slow, that many refugees spent years in Germany awaiting the outcome.[5] As of 2013, the approval rate was about 30 percent, and 127,000 people sought asylum. As of 30 November 2014 more than 180,000 people have applied, with an expected 2014 total of 200,000. This equals to 0.4 percent of the 51.2 million global refugees. Germany's percentage of refugees per capita is lower than that of Sweden and Malta.[10]
§Comparison with other countries from European Union[edit]
According to Eurostat 47.3 million people lived in the European Union in 2010 who were born outside their resident country. This corresponds to 9.4% of the total EU population. Of these, 31.4 million (6.3%) were born outside the EU and 16.0 million (3.2%) were born in another EU member state. The largest absolute numbers of people born outside the EU were in Germany (6.4 million), France (5.1 1993-present[edit]
In the mid nineties, only about 5 percent of the asylum applications were approved and processing and appeals were so slow, that many refugees spent years in Germany awaiting the outcome.[5] As of 2013, the approval rate was about 30 percent, and 127,000 people sought asylum. As of 30 November 2014 more than 180,000 people have applied, with an expected 2014 total of 200,000. This equals to 0.4 percent of the 51.2 million global refugees. Germany's percentage of refugees per capita is lower than that of Sweden and Malta.[10]
§Comparison with other countries from European Union[edit]
According to Eurostat 47.3 million people lived in the European Union in 2010 who were born outside their resident country. This corresponds to 9.4% of the total EU population. Of these, 31.4 million (6.3%) were born outside the EU and 16.0 million (3.2%) were born in another EU member state. The largest absolute numbers of people born outside the EU were in Germany (6.4 million), France (5.1
No its not wrong but in my opinion very unwise, very very unwise.
Agreed DrJ but asylum seekers etc aren't the issue numbers wise and the agenda of the EU is continued expansion and the majority of those joining are poor countries where the incentive to relocate to the richer EU economies is huge. We keep hearing about immigrants who are coming here and paying their taxes but with personal allowance at 11k each a couple can arrive and pay very little in the way of tax and certainly not enough to support the school paces and NHS services they will require.
JY I think refugees/asylum seekers should be funded like we do with the Lifeboats/RNLI. We have a charity setup which processes their applications and provides accommodation and remains responsible for them financially. If the public support asylum seekers morally they can do so by donating to the charities. The charity has a specific budget and that dictates the numbers.
Certainly interesting to see the politics, the Socialist Workers Party where out in force in West London around the QPR stadium with leaflets and banners saying Immigrants Welcome Here in what is a very ethnically mixed area
We keep hearing about immigrants who are coming here and paying their taxes but with personal allowance at 11k each a couple can arrive and pay very little in the way of tax and certainly not enough to support the school paces and NHS services they will require.
Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a [b]net gain[/b] from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits, although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the 'all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems' mantra.
A new report, put out by University College London’s Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, finds that immigrants from the 10 countries which joined the EU in 2004 contributed £4.96bn more in taxes up to 2011 than they took out through the use of benefits and public services. The study factors in immigrants’ proportionate share of public service costs.
Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a net gain from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits, although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the 'all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems' mantra.
Overly simplistic as shown by this [url= http://www.civitas.org.uk/immigration/LSI ]study[/url]
In this new analysis of the economic and demographic consequences of current levels of immigration, the distinguished Cambridge economist Robert Rowthorn finds that the potential economic gains from immigration are modest compared with the strains placed on amenities such as housing, land, schools, hospitals, water supply and transport systems.
While GDP as a whole will grow with increased immigration, Rowthorn notes, GDP per capita - a much better indicator of the nation's wealth - will be only marginally affected by the enormous population growth forecast for the coming century. He cites the Office for National Statistics' high migration scenario, which sees growth in the UK population of 20 million over the next 50 years and 29 million over the next 75 years - entirely from migration. This is equivalent to adding a city almost the size of Birmingham to the UK population every two-and-a-half years for the next 75 years.
"Unrestrained population growth would eventually have a negative impact on the standard of living through its environmental effects such as overcrowding, congestion and loss of amenity," Rowthorn writes.
Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a net gain from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits, although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the 'all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems' mantra.
@footflaps but these studies are hugely impacted by immigrants like all the bankers who come to work for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Societe Generale etc etc all of whom whould be granted a work VISA under any application scheme
UKIP are not saying there will be no immigration just an application process as exists in the Australia, the US, Canada etc etc
Just seen @mefty's post and that's exactly my point
Overly simplistic as shown by this study
They are two different things, one looks at what has happened (net gain) and one looks at what [b]might[/b] happen...
(LibDem) Having got a sniff of power and having to come to some accomodation with another party, they now find themselves the pariah of British politics.
No, not like this. The Lib Dems took a seat at the big table and it has broken them. They are no longer a lovable, hopeless third party who turn up every 5 years looking worthy; they've made themselves unvotable (Is that a word? It is now!) by showing that, when it all shakes out, they are the same as the other two and they long to be like them.
UKIP may have a respectable showing in the General Election, but if they manage to keep their distance from any coalition, they will make themselves a respectable choice for the next GE.
Where they could pounce and really make themselves comfy in Parliament; having shaken off Farage along the way and having someone who at least appears normal at the helm.
[quote=footflaps said]
Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a net gain from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits, although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the 'all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems' mantra.
The report you quoted is for EU migration, what about non-EU ?
Edit: Found it http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467
[img] 
[/img]
Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a net gain from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits.
Net gain, some contribute, some don't - here's a wild idea, how about we pick and choose like other countries do?
although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the 'all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems' mantra.
Really? I thought Nige was pretty clear that immigration in itself was not a problem, whilst open door immigration from the entirety of the EU was
but if they manage to keep their distance from any coalition
How can they possibly do that whilst having any power?
[quote=ScottChegg ]Where they could pounce and really make themselves comfy in Parliament; having shaken off Farage along the way and having someone who at least appears normal at the helm.
You do realise that he's actually the most sane of the lot of them?
They are two different things, one looks at what has happened (net gain) and one looks at what might happen...
If you read it, you will find considerable commentary and discussion on the past as well.
@footflaps but these studies are hugely impacted by immigrants like all the bankers
Think it's more that they are young and fit. If a load of elderly Romanians showed up things might be different.
Meanwhile - I will look for the reference about Germany, but basically it was about them being able to refuse benefits. IIRC it provoked some interest here as a possible precedent.
Net gain, some contribute, some don't - here's a wild idea, how about we pick and choose like other countries do?
Because if you want to be part of the EU, you don't get that choice.
how about we pick and choose like other countries do?
we cannot do this for EU immigration just like "other countries" cannot
As for the rest we do pick and choose as we still have an immigration policy.
You just abandoned your free market principles in order to argue the government puts regulation in the way of the market.
Shameful leftism there 8)
Serious Q why do the right wing want to do this with people but they trust business? Never understood that duality.
Two things UKIP are perpetually misrepresented on are that they are [i]for[/i] assylum for refugees and that they are [i]for[/i] immigration - but as you say, selective.ninfan - Member
Net gain, some contribute, some don't - here's a wild idea, how about we pick and choose like other countries do?
I see no logical reason why we do not at least try to get the right immigrants.
Furthermore, most of the things that blight UK resident's lives (be they British born or immigrant) are broadly associated with overpopulation. It is politically convenient to keep GDP (and thereby tax take) growing by means of immigration, but the real cost is being borne by ordinary people, unable to afford rising housing costs and the luxury of private services -in health, education and first class transport - to shield them from the overburdened infrastructure and welfare system.
We can't kid ourselves that we can do without better control of the rate of increase of population.
Looking at the value of an immigrant solely as tax paid is silly, you need to look at their gva. A student pays little or no tax, for instance, but they contribute £10bn per year to the UK economy directly, and even more indirectly.
Though of course that's falling every year, because Theresa May's a halfwit.
You flatter her there NW
You are not immune from racism due to your skin colour.
Was once verbally attacked by a shrieking and self-righteous neo-lib woman who entirely disagreed with that sentiment. She maintained that only caucasian people could be 'racist', and that I was 'racist' to suggest otherwise. Stupid honky cracker, I nearly called her a bimbo.
How can they possibly do that whilst having any power?
Win a few seats?
Furthermore, most of the things that blight UK resident's lives (be they British born or immigrant) are broadly associated with overpopulation. It is politically convenient to keep GDP (and thereby tax take) growing by means of immigration, but the real cost is being borne by ordinary people, unable to afford rising housing costs and the luxury of private services -in health, education and first class transport - to shield them from the overburdened infrastructure and welfare system.
Immigration has added to the strain a bit, but not as much as demographic changes which have happened in the UK, mainly smaller house holds, mass migration from rural areas to cities and economic migration to the SE. These have put enormous pressure on the housing market in certain areas and we've had successive governments who have no real interest in building new houses and are quite happy to let a housing bubble concentrate wealth in an elite few (those born before 1970). Even without migration we'd still have these problems.
You could blame immigration, but economic policy since 1979 has been focussed on enriching those that already have wealth (esp housing assets) at the expense of those that don't.
Net gain, some contribute, some don't - here's a wild idea, how about we pick and choose like other countries do?
Much like the locals, then. Who decides who should have a right to be here?
@allthepies - that chart can't possibly make sense, it basically says the UK born population doesn't sustain itself and we are reliant on immigrants to balance the books ?
Win a few seats?
<Sigh> My reply was to "but if they manage to keep their distance from any coalition".
A few seats will get them nowhere. More than a few but less than a lot may get them into a coalition. I order to avoid a coalition and have power they need...?
The thing about UKIP is that while, on a cursory inspection, most of their policies look not totally bonkers (I do think that withdrawing from the EU would be v bad), a large proportion of their supporters and candidates really do seem to be swivel-eyed loons. Just look at the "gay marriage causing the floods" comments, anything that Godfrey Bloom says (although he has now left UKIP as it is too PC!), and the latest [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/nigel-farage-tells-dominatrix-ukip-supporter-who-believes-leader-has-been-sent-from-god-im-not-the-messiah-im-a-very-naughty-boy-10090547.html ]"Nigel is the Messiah"[/url] wacko-doodlery.
It is a bad sign when Nigel Farage is the "voice of reason" in a party.