Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 10 2014, 05:45 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29549414 The majority have spoken.

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Oct 10 2014, 07:04 AM

Good. The main 3 parties are past their sell-by-date and the traitorous red menace needs to be destroyed.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2014, 11:13 AM

No they haven't.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 10 2014, 11:57 AM

I had to laugh at one of the vox pops in Clacton on TV a bit earlier. She was glad UKIP got in because they represented the common people - the representatives of the other parties are all millionaires.

I read that Nigel Farage earned about $75m last year.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2014, 12:38 PM

The unfunny bit is that these people have equal voting power as us more cerebral types!

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 10 2014, 12:49 PM

...and clever people too!

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 10 2014, 01:23 PM

Yet!

Posted by: On the edge Oct 10 2014, 06:05 PM

Well, she wasn't the only one taken in by sloppy reporting then! Digging a bit deeper, it's Not 'earnings' but expenses from the EU; there is a subtle difference. Farage would doubtless argue that he uses the expenses to fund UKIP, so the lady making the comment is probably not thick, just right.

I'm amazed anyone sees the UKIP result as a surprise. The only surprise is that it's taken so long.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 10 2014, 10:45 PM

Nigel Farage.

Straight talk.

It's all "most" people want in a politician.

Have you had enough of speeches written by ghost writers, fake kisses, promises that are not kept, and waving arms and concerned faces during the delivery of said speeches?

People are deserting the main parties because of this. Farage may be an opportunist but he speaks for a large proportion of the population whether people like it or not.

And the fact that the BBC and other press demonise UKIP as racist is like a red rag to a bull to a lot of people who are fed up with the current politic.

Why is Boris Johnson so popular? He connects.. whether you like him or not.

Cheerio Con/Lab/Lib choice. I'd be happy to see more parties come to Westminster. Get politicians to represent the constituents rather than WHIPS who tell them what to do.

Happy days...........

Posted by: Weavers Walk Oct 11 2014, 10:17 AM

Are you saying UKIP aren't racist and that they've just been mis-represented?

Posted by: JeffG Oct 11 2014, 10:37 AM

Well, if you want another source for his net worth, try http://en.mediamass.net/people/nigel-farage/highest-paid.html. The article says he has an estimated net worth of $215 million. Now, you shouldn't take everything you read at face value, but I'm pretty confident it's not all made up.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2014, 10:57 AM

It could be argued that the other main parties' manifestos are more racist; UKIP will not discriminate based on the origin of foreigners coming to live and work here.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 11 2014, 12:47 PM

Are we able to take whatever politician of any party says as the truth going by the standards of the last few Governments

This is the main problem not only do they do what they say they would never do but the main problem is to try and decide what they will do that has not been debated!

I perhaps think that there should be a public warning given that all politicians are economic with the truth and that voting for any of them could be disadvantageous.
Until the MP's actually start representing their constituents, not their sponsors, party whips, establishment, or their own self interest then nothing is going to change? Or is this asking too much of a normal human being?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2014, 01:12 PM

The public gets what it deserves.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Oct 11 2014, 02:44 PM

Who's going to speak up for the 85% that didn't vote for them?

Posted by: user23 Oct 11 2014, 02:46 PM

One caller to a phone in show said that he voted for UKIP because he didn't like the previous MP.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 11 2014, 03:18 PM

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 11 2014, 06:28 PM

Can you please explain why they are racist?

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Oct 11 2014, 07:26 PM

http://http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/10/passionate-ukip-supporter-cant-name-a-single-thing-the-party-stand-for-in-painful-radio-interview-4900910/

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 11 2014, 07:28 PM

I would quite like to know as well.

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 11 2014, 07:30 PM

Speaking of course as a swivel eyed, closet racist, fruitcake. (Oh how they must be regretting those words)

Posted by: Weavers Walk Oct 11 2014, 07:33 PM

Reading your post you implied that the BBC et al had demonised UKIP as being racist.
I merely asked if you were saying they (UKIP) had been or were being mis-represented.

I asked for clarification. Here's your big chance. Are you saying that UKIP are not racist and it's all been got up by the media?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 11 2014, 08:04 PM

A typical example of "BBC" Stereotyping was again seen just last night
Have I got news for you. UKIP get an elected member of parliament. Out comes a fake gun pointed to the temple by the host basically intimating the people of Clacton must be stupid.

It happens all the time and the more it happens the bigger the UKIP vote will be. People just don't get it.
I've no actual view on who I will vote for at the next general election. I have voted for the Conservatives and the Lib Dems before in the past and I could not vote for either party again.
In this area you'd be a fruit cake to vote Labour so who are you left with and who actually say's what most people think but are afraid to say for being afraid of being accused of being racist?

We still live in a democracy so lets see what happens. It's good to vote. more people should.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Oct 11 2014, 08:28 PM

Silly billy. The programme was recorded BEFORE the result was known. Yet you put it as though that happened AFTER the result was known. It wasn't.
Maybe your bias is showing.

However, you still haven't taken the opportunity to assure us that UKIP isn't racist.

Over to you....

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 11 2014, 08:40 PM

"The programme was recorded BEFORE the result was known."

Why does that make a difference? Its ok to judge people voting before they vote?

You sound like Ed Miliband and all the other political "Elite" by answering a question by ignoring it and asking another - Answer why UKIP Are Racist - please?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 11 2014, 09:26 PM

Applying derogatory terms is an age old trick; deployed by those who can't justify their own position.

Personally, I don't agree with any limits or restrictions on immigration. What's wrong with free movement?

However, I can quite understand why many disagree; particularly when our existing politicians seem incapable of ensuring we have an adequate infrastructure to support this, in terms of living and employment.

From what I can see UKIP are simply in the 'we can't cope with existing numbers, so why let more in' camp.

That doesn't make them racist. Any more than it makes anyone who feels Newbury is now too overcrowded.

UKIP believe that we will thrive economically outside Europe, again I disagree, but can well understand their position. Particularly when our own Government think our engineers too thick to design nuclear power stations etc, and only European firms can do that.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Oct 11 2014, 09:35 PM

Oh good grief.

You said " A typical example of "BBC" Stereotyping was again seen just last night
Have I got news for you. UKIP get an elected member of parliament. Out comes a fake gun"

When the gun came out UKIP had not got a member elected to parliament. You got it round the wrong way.


We are still waiting for you to take the chance to back up your original statement that somehow UKIP being racist was all got up by the media.

I simply gave you the opportunity to tell us for once and for all that UKIP weren't racist. Since then you've done nothing but prevaricate.

Fair enough.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 11 2014, 09:54 PM

Prevaricate? Pot? Kettle? LOL! - Why are UKIP racist? You won't answer my question. Are you an MP?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 11 2014, 10:16 PM

Thank you. Someone sensible.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 12 2014, 07:36 AM

No one here is saying that UKIP are racist so there is no argument to make.

You however make the defing point of your support for UKIP that they are not racist. It's an odd way of promoting a political party, it's like an advert for a preparatory school saying "we won't sexually abuse your children".

Not being racist isn't much of an endorsement, and I'm interested now to see if it's true, so make your argument.

Posted by: user23 Oct 12 2014, 08:27 AM

This excerpt from a radio phone in on "what do UKIP stand for" is interesting:

https://audioboom.com/boos/2550913-what-do-ukip-stand-for-james-o-brien-s-takedown-of-this-supporter-is-effortless#t=0m0s

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 12 2014, 08:47 AM

Rusty Bullet already posted it at http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=2853&view=findpost&p=98771, but all the same it's worth listening to again.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 12 2014, 09:26 AM

Are you saying they are; I infer you are? TD&H stated that the media attempted to demise UKIP; that is a fact regardless of whether they are or not. I think before we have a meaningful debate about this, we have to establish what a racist is.

As far as I'm concerned, officially, UKIP are not a racist party and while we can speculate, no-one has a right to claim otherwise unless they can back it up with facts. I suspect UKIP has a racist element, but I am confident all the main parties do too. Perhaps UKIP might have a higher quota of racist voters, but that also on its own doesn't make 'the party' racist either.

My hunch is that UKIP supporters resent the level of immigration, others resent what they see as EU interference and many enjoy having a relatively powerful party to vote for that is like voting for 'none of the above'.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 12 2014, 09:40 AM

Except the link he posted was broken, which I was about to fix, but no need now.

Posted by: The Doctor Oct 12 2014, 10:38 AM

Incredibly unfair.

Looking back is was YOU who first said UKIP had been demonised as being racist by the 'media'.
You were immediately asked to confirm that they weren't. At that point you started to answer questions with more questions (not good form) and despite being given more chances have still failed to answer the original question. It is, after all, a simple yes or no answer.
So I'll take an opportunity and ask you once again for all of our benefits - after your original statement that UKIP were 'demonised' as being racist by the media, can you confirm that they're not?

Don't answer questions with questions, don't hum or haw, don't - as it says - 'prevaricate', man up, grow a pair and give us the simple yes or no answer. Are UKIP racist?

Oh, and Perkins pointing a gun to her head is more about her being a member of the LGBT community and her ongoing battle (in print) with senior members of UKIP than a judgment on racism.

Posted by: user23 Oct 12 2014, 02:01 PM

Did someone say "A typical example of BBC Stereotyping":

Posted by: On the edge Oct 12 2014, 02:25 PM

Let's be honest, the phenomenon is nothing new. We saw the same thing happen when the Liberal 'revival' took place in the 60s and 70s, then the SDP in the 1980s followed by the LibDims. The coalition where some of the second division Tory wannabes can't be kept quiet with expected minor government roles just excaserbates the problem. The dogs will bark but the caravan keeps moving on.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 12 2014, 05:40 PM

I'll ask you the same type of question then: are they?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 12 2014, 06:46 PM

UKIP is a patriotic party that promotes independence: from the EU, and from government interference. We believe in free trade, lower taxes, personal freedom and responsibility.

UKIP believes in Britain becoming a democratic, self-governing country once again. This can only be achieved by getting our nation out of the European Union and reasserting the sovereignty of Parliament.

As a party we are unashamedly patriotic: we believe there is so much to be proud about Britain and the contribution it has made to the world. We believe that Britain is good enough to be an independent nation, trading and building harmonious relations with the rest of the world.

We believe Britain must get back control over its borders, so that it can welcome people with a positive contribution to make while limiting the overall numbers of migrants and keeping out those without the skills or aptitudes to be of benefit to the nation.

UKIP believes in promoting self-reliance and personal freedom from state interference. We believe the state in Britain has become too large, too expensive and too dominant over civil society.

Return Power to the UK

• A vote for UKIP is a vote to leave the EU and recover power over our national life.

• Free trade, but not political union, with our European neighbours. We are the EU’s largest export market: they depend on us for jobs - not the other way around.

• Binding local and national referenda, at the public’s request, on major issues.

Protect Our Borders

• Regain control of our borders and of immigration - only possible by leaving the EU.

• Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years. This means private health insurance (except emergency medical care), private education and private housing - they should pay into the pot before they take out of it.

• A points-based visa system and time-limited work permits.

• Proof of private health insurance must be a precondition for immigrants and tourists to enter the UK.

Rebuild Prosperity

• Save £55m a day in membership fees by leaving the EU and give British workers first crack at the 800,000 jobs we currently advertise to EU workers.

• No tax on the minimum wage.

• Enrol unemployed welfare claimants onto community schemes or retraining workfare programmes.

• Scrap HS2, all green taxes and wind turbine subsidies.

• Develop shale gas to reduce energy bills and free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas - place the tax revenues into a British Sovereign Wealth Fund.

• UKIP will abolish inheritance tax. Inheritance tax brings in under £4bn - less than a third of what we spend on foreign aid. The super-rich avoid it, while modest property owners get caught by it. It hits people during a time of grief and UKIP will budget in its 2015 spending plans to completely abolish this unfair death tax.

• Make cuts to foreign aid that are real and rigorous.

Safeguard Against Crime

• No cuts to front line policing.

• Make sentences mean what they say.

• No votes for prisoners - that’s what losing your liberty means.

• Prevent foreign criminals entering the UK - by re-introducing border controls that the EU forced us to abandon.

• Scrap the European Arrest Warrant, which sends British citizens to foreign jails without evidence, just to answer questions - replace it with a proper extradition system.

• Remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

Care And Support For All

• Open GP surgeries in the evening, for full-time workers, where there is demand.

• Locally-elected County Health Boards to inspect hospitals - to avoid another Stafford Hospital crisis.

• Prioritise social housing for people whose parents and grandparents were born locally.

• Allow the creation of new grammar schools.

• Make welfare a safety net for the needy, not a bed for the lazy. Benefits only available to those who have lived here for over 5 years.

Free Speech and Democracy

• No to Political Correctness - it stifles free speech.

• The law of the land must apply to us all. We oppose any other system of law.

• Teach children positive messages and pride in their country. We want to unite through better integration.

UKIP is a patriotic party that believes in putting Britain first. Only UKIP will return self-government to the British people.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 12 2014, 07:19 PM

If you go to UKIPs website you see a mission statement stating what they stand for.

Try EASILY doing the same with other political parties.

A lot of people I know are very fed up with the political establishment. It needs a shake up.
Labour and the Conservatives think they have a right to rule. They don't. The people do.

I hope it's time for a quite "British" revolution.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 12 2014, 07:53 PM

That's all very well, but you said that UKIP were demonized by the media as racist - so are they racist?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 12 2014, 08:05 PM

I don't believe so. If your "personal" view is that the country is full is "racist" then we live in a sad world.
I'm only talking from my experience over the years in seeing deteriorating services due to mass population increase.
And yes - the Labour Party have to take a lot of the blame but the Con/Lib pact have not exactly covered themselves in glory.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 12 2014, 09:00 PM

If you mean by "patriotic" that militaristic willy-waving we have at times gone in for then no, I'm not "patriotic" and I think the UK should satisfy itself with securing its own national borders and leaving other nations to do the same. But I too am proud of my country - and I'm fed up with the far-right co-opting my national heritage to construct some faux narrative in support of their intolerance.


Yes, on this I agree 100%. But where is UKIP locally? Allotment self-management, tax-money to support the charter market, £100k to run a ceremonial mayor - shall I go on? I think your party is as full of humbug as all the rest.


No it doesn't, it just reins-in the gratuitously offensive from making unnecessarily hurtful comments - it's only actually a problem for the pathologically hateful.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 12 2014, 09:07 PM

At least you can make a judgement based on a mission statement. Most of the other parties mission statement is to avoid answering any question.
I appreciate your point of view though Simon. I just wished that more people would involve themselves in a good old fashioned frank discussion on these issues.

Posted by: The Doctor Oct 13 2014, 12:20 AM

Simple one word answer - Yes.

Same question to you...do you believe they're racist?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 13 2014, 06:52 AM

Care to explain? Can you provide the evidence for your view or is it based on your observations of what you have picked up from the media?

For example, I now believe the LibDems are unprincipled and interested only in power forbids own sake. Why? Because what they say in their constitution isn't apparent in their actions; locally (their behaviour on NTC) or nationally (i.e. Tuition fees).

Posted by: The Hatter Oct 13 2014, 07:07 AM

The real racists are the main parties who think that immigration is OK for doing menial low paid jobs that we don't want to do. How bad is that?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 13 2014, 08:26 AM

I've already answered that!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 13 2014, 08:27 AM

Skilled immigrants are welcome too, notwithstanding menial jobs are done by everyone.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 13 2014, 08:30 AM

Officially no.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 13 2014, 10:44 AM

That was kindly said TDH and I appreciate your comment. Thank you.

Posted by: The Doctor Oct 13 2014, 11:19 AM

Marvellous. Thank you. You've caused a fair bit of mirth and gave up a new title.
In future they shall be known as "UKIP - The party who aren't officially racist".

Nice.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 13 2014, 12:30 PM

I have no affinity with UKIP, so it is not in my gift to entitle anything and they are certainly not my preferred party, although it is possible I might vote for them for tactical reasons. I use the term 'officially', because that is demonstrably true; however, do UKIP have racist members? I suspect so, but that wouldn't make them a racist party.

Perhaps you might describe what a 'racist party' is? In my view the word has been abused and misused to a point where I feel it's meaning has changed.

It is sad that in a democracy if one is opposed to things like the EU, one has to vote for parties that are considered by some to be racist.

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 13 2014, 02:22 PM

Well, perhaps a better way would be for the party to describe itself.
Alan Sked, the founder of the party ( ran it for nearly four years ) said that "they are racist and have been infected by the far-right." He also went on record as saying, "UKIP is even less liberal than the British National Party".
Having been on the inside, created the party, watched it grow, seen the new members, officials and candidates arrive, he'd be in the best position to know.

Posted by: Gazzadp Oct 13 2014, 02:32 PM

I would never vote Ukip, but then again as an ex LibDem party member and activist I will never vote LibDem ever again either!

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Oct 13 2014, 03:32 PM

White, male, ex-Tory and incumbent MP wins by-election: UKIP hails "huge change"

http://eveningharold.com/2014/10/13/bbc-to-launch-its-own-nigel-farage-channel/

Posted by: The Optimist Oct 13 2014, 06:52 PM

Is that the same Alan Sked who had a public endorsement from Enoch "Rivers of Blood" Powell in our very own By-election in 1993 (following the passing of Judith Chaplin)?

If so I would agree he is well placed to talk about the issue of public opinion around policies of immigration and race!

I think my vote that day would have been for Screaming Lord Sutch as he would have been as reliable as those that took the job subsequently. At least he was self aware

Posted by: Strafin Oct 13 2014, 08:34 PM

Thank you for putting the working link in, it was worth a listen and I would have missed it otherwise

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 14 2014, 03:43 PM

Yes it would, so I don't think his right-wing credentials are in any doubt. If he started the party and he say's it's become racist, then who are we to argue?

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 14 2014, 04:00 PM

Racist - Definition...............
"having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another"
I tend to agree with your point H.
So nothing then really to do with, for various reasons, wanting to have the ability to control the influx of people from whatever race or nationality to an already crowded country?

Posted by: Weavers Walk Oct 15 2014, 11:41 AM

There it is. Always going appear sooner or later.

The fact of the matter is the population of the UK will fit on the Isle of Wight four times over.

In addition the total area of England that has been built on is just under 3%.

Odd definition of 'overcrowded,.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 15 2014, 11:45 AM

I don't think it is odd, but I think your argument is specious. One has to factor in sustainability and infrastructure, which is what people like Biker1 complain of; notwithstanding 97% of the land is not available and will not be available to live on any time soon. And don't forget we have a severe housing problem, reportedly.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 15 2014, 02:47 PM

A lot of people would not be happy at living on the Isle of Wight as it is now, let alone sharing it with the whole population of the UK. What do you envisage: filling every square metre with huge tower blocks?

A lot of the UK is, thank goodness, not built on, because of agriculture. open spaces and forests etc. Chop down all the trees and what are we going to breathe?

Posted by: Weavers Walk Oct 15 2014, 03:00 PM

Nope, far from it....just pointing out that the often rolled out argument "we're overcrowded" is not really accurate.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 15 2014, 05:26 PM

There it is. Always going appear sooner or later.

I disagree, I think we are, depends on the definition I suppose.
Andy & Jeff can see the point that we cannot build on and populate every square inch.
Obviously you think there is plenty of room and infrastructure for an unlimited flow of people to this country so we'll leave it there.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 15 2014, 05:41 PM

I don't think anyone is actually saying we are overcrowded, simply that the support structures are now wholly overloaded. Some recent examples, we no longer give our OAPs meals on wheels and regular monitoring, we cannot quickly fix critical signalling systems on our railways and roads which don't even appear to have emergency backups. Our streets and walkways are and stay filthy, littered with waste and gum. Our GP service is beginning to break up, Our education provision standards have dropped dramatically in World league tables. We have a housing provision crisis which has caused central government to overturn age old planning constraints......

No, we aren't overcrowded, simply badly let down by our services.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 15 2014, 06:03 PM

This is it in a nutshell. Health and housing infrastructure are particularly stretched, but the UK also lacks food and fuel security and that is a good measure of an unsustainably high population. The first two can be fixed with investment, but then the last two only get worse.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 15 2014, 06:08 PM

Congratulations on looking at statistics without understanding the underlying data.

It would be extremely difficult to build on certain areas within the UK. Mountainous areas of Scotland and Wales plus other areas including moorland - but these areas are not excluded and therefore more than 3% of land that can be built on has.

Whilst there is still a lot of land that can be built on I am sure the majority do not want the UK to become a Hong Kong where nearly all the land is built on so we need to find a happy medium, and some form of control on net population increase.

It is more than just house building - we need to ensure we have adequate schools, doctors, hospitals, jobs, roads and other infrastructure for essential services.

Having no border controls makes this even more difficult, and not being able to select those we wish to admit on the basis of the value they bring and those with a lack of a serious criminal record - not selection by race - weakens our abilty to build a better Britain.

Whilst many of us would welcome the removal of some of our worst offenders to another country, we wouldn't expect that country to accept them.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 15 2014, 06:23 PM

I'm still waiting for Sandleford and it's Country Park - that's proving quite a challenge too.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 15 2014, 06:26 PM

Is that on the Horn of Africa?

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 15 2014, 09:00 PM

No it's a large Gorilla with a big nose!

Typo now corrected.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 15 2014, 09:35 PM

That depends with what prejudice you view the comment. I feel that both ends of the argument just look for confirmation bias* without really caring about the truth.

*We all do it: Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or prioritize information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Oct 15 2014, 10:21 PM

I don't view the comment with any prejudice at all. The person making the assertion is entitled to their own view. (And the same freedom allows others to find it fvckin' hilarious)

What I did was post a link which I hoped would give a more 'balanced' view. I happen to think the percentages speak for themselves i.e. we are not overcrowded.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 16 2014, 07:23 AM

In physical terms, yes you are right. If you were a plumber and loaded your mini van full of lead roof panels, it wouldn't be overcrowded, just overloaded. So, if your boss asked to to slide in a few bags of cement as well; you'd be pretty foolish if you tried to drive off, but the van still wouldn't be overcrowded.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 16 2014, 11:52 AM

So I presume a multi hundred (or even thousand) dwelling development next to or near you would raise no objection from yourself?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 16 2014, 12:18 PM

But your argument is flawed and didn't reflect on Biker1's view. You also appeared to ignore my arguments for why I felt that way and just repeated yourself, so I inferred that your opinion is prejudiced.

I don't think Biker1 is wholly correct, but not because of the argument you proposed. Your argument proposes that 100% of the UK is habitable; it is not. Also, the article you linked to was a description of developed land rather than population density.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 17 2014, 09:47 AM

Yes but as I said they don't tell the whole story do they?

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 18 2014, 07:46 AM

When I travel about by foot, road or train or when I try to book a doctors or hospital appointment I feel that we are.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 18 2014, 09:19 AM

You should go for your walk in Scotland or Wales, it may not be where you need to go and the terrain may be a bit awkward but it's not crowded

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 18 2014, 09:23 AM

Like Northbrook Street in the week!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 18 2014, 10:07 AM

Let's take health. If the service is stretched then open more doctors surgeries and hospitals.

But that's not what people want - people in Newbury vote Tory, and will soon be voting UKIP, because they don't want to pay for "benefit scroungers" like the old and the sick, and it's convenient to blame a stretched service on "immigrants". The reality is that on the whole the eastern European economic migrants that have swelled the populations in the last 10 years are largely young, fit, and hard working, and so pay a relatively high proportion of the tax-cost of running the health service whilst using it relatively little.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 18 2014, 11:07 AM

Broad benefits aren't necessarily felt by individuals. Sure we need tax payers to pay for a growth in the elderly population, but that is an unsustainable policy. Not least that as the poorer countries wealth improves we will become less attractive to newcomers, but by then will have old immigrants too. Also, what impact on the poorer countries does it have to see their healthy population migrate away?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 18 2014, 12:52 PM

I'm not particularly arguing that immigration is good, I'm just arguing that the stretched health service is not stretched because the population has grown, it's stretched because the population demands more from it than they are willing to pay. Put simply the 2.5 million economic migrants who arrived in the last 10 years now make up around 4% of the population, but as they're mostly working then they make up around 10% of the 25 million tax-paying UK adults and contribute around 10% of the tax revenue, but as they're mostly young and fit they only add around 2% to the load on the health service. Lose the migrants, and you ease the pressure on the health service by 2%, but you cut it's finding by 10%, so overall the service is 8% worse. So not only is the immigrant load on the health service marginal, they're supporting it for the rest of us.

Amongst the unpalatable reasons for the health service being stretched is that the UK population is living longer, and we're living longer because we're spending more time at the doctors being cured of all those bits and bobs that used to see us off, and a whole bunch of other stuff that we didn't used to have to worry about because we'd be dead before it was ever a problem. That's great of course, but it all needs to be paid for, and it needs to be paid for by those in work, but as those in work haven't generally started to benefit from the health service they're being asked to pay for they're rather obviously not so fussed to be taxed for it, at least not in the Tory seats where people don't think about anyone but themselves.

Still like I say, that's all a bit unpalatable, and UKIP's idea that it's all the fault of the horrible foreigners is much easier to swallow.

Posted by: user23 Oct 18 2014, 01:43 PM

Yes, that's one bit of the debate that rarely gets discussed.

Essentially the UK is taking some of the taxpaying, young, skilled and semi-skilled work force away from the poorer counties to help fund care for our growing elderly population.

Limiting immigration also works both ways, and it may also mean that the million or so Brits who have emigrated to Spain and other countries (see below) have to return. We'd be swapping a young, taxpaying workforce who want to live here for an elderly one that doesn't, many of whom we would all have to support.


Brits who have emigrated to other EU countries.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 18 2014, 01:45 PM

How many have you spoken to who wish to reduce benefits to the old and sick?

They may wish, like me, to reduce waste and to eliminate spending on the "true scroungers" like those who are not prepared to work or expect us to pay for large families (numbers not size) via an uncapped child benefits. I don't think I have ever met anyone who advocates removing benefits from the deserving. But maybe you are just using this to cover for the Useless Lib-Dems who could quite possibly come behind the Monster Raving Loony party if they were to select a candidate for Newbury.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 18 2014, 01:54 PM

Indeed but we still need to control the net increase in UK residents which is the stance I have always maintained. And as we need to be selective about who we allow in on the basis of benefit to the economy and criminal record rather than race - so will those who are the target of migrations from the UK.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 18 2014, 01:54 PM

Yet there is not very much outcry when we have to find the money for the weapons to carry out our military operations on eliminating the so called terrorism threat is there?
It seems a bit absurd to me that we can spend billions on a supposed threat yet we are unable to find enough finance to keep our efficient, compared to other systems worldwide who we are the envy of, NHS running as we would like?
So we spend billions at the drop of a hat killing foreign people who may be a threat to us but we are very reluctant to want to spend any money curing people of life threatening illness that are actually killing us?

Does this sum up for you?

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 18 2014, 03:40 PM

Yes why did they also spend money on defence in the 1930's & 40's when they hadn't even created an NHS?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 18 2014, 04:57 PM

I appreciate that you have always maintained that stance, but you haven't shown why that's a good thing, and I've already shown you how a 2% loading on the nation health service from economic migrants can't possibly be responsible for the stretching of the service that we see, and that expelling those economic migrants would actually make the situation much worse by cutting something like 8% from NHS funding.

User also helpfully shows how closing our borders to the industrious young of Eastern Europe will also precipitate the repatriation to Blighty of at least two million ex-pats, not all of whom have shown the same application on foreign shores. Great.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 18 2014, 05:11 PM

Because we can't increase those facilities overnight - there needs to be a gradual and planned increase.

I notice you are very selective in your argument and say nothing of the increase of schooling and child tax credits that this younger generation brings.

I suspect that other nations such as Spain may not send their immigrants back due to the money they inject into the economy

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 18 2014, 05:16 PM

To be clear, my thoughts are my own. I share the values that the Lib-Dem party profess, but the sold-out limp-wristed self-serving middle-class establishment-apologists who people the local party have nothing in common with what I stand for so I very much hope you're right and that they get a good stuffing at the next election. If I can't convince you that a society built on fairness and justice with respect for the rights of the individual is a society you want to live in then fair enough, vote for UKIP or the Tories, but for anyone who does want that society then a vote for the local Lib Dems is the very last thing you want to do.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 18 2014, 05:29 PM

Silly reply alert!
(Although I appreciate the emoticons).

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 18 2014, 05:34 PM

Sorry for the unresponsive reply but what a load of rubbish.
Could you redefine your examples of "benefit scroungers" please.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 18 2014, 06:58 PM

The issue here is how certain groups of benefit claimants such as the unemployed and disabled are characterised as "benefit scroungers" without demur, whereas in reality those groups are no more scrounging than any other benefit claimants, the most numerous of which are pensioners and users of the national health service. If you don't like my examples then I hope you challenge others when you come across them.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 18 2014, 07:08 PM

Most only classify a few as scroungers.

However you count someone has worked all the life and contributed to society as much of a scrounger if ill or in old age as someone who has never worked has no intention of doing so. Very strange!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 18 2014, 07:09 PM

Isn't the main policy of UKIP self management?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 18 2014, 09:12 PM

It's not my classification. If you call anyone a "benefits scrounger" then you label everyone - pensioners and the sick just the same. You talk about "true scroungers", citing "those who are not prepared to work or expect us to pay for large families via an uncapped child benefits" but how can you discriminate - benefits are benefits. It's not so easy denying people the dignity of basic state benefits, but stop thinking about them as people and call them "benefits scroungers" and it's a whole bunch easier, and if anyone complains it's easy to defend, because they're not "deserving", they're just "benefits scroungers".

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 18 2014, 11:04 PM

What an idiotic response.

If you can't see the some people abuse the system you must be a complete fool. And as they say a fool and his money are easily parted.

You presumably are quite happy for somebody to exist Unemployment benefit and additional allowances without making any contribution to society and with no intention of finding work because they can't be bothered?

There may not be many benefit scroungers %age wise but they are out there none the less.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 19 2014, 07:16 AM

Who are the 'benefit scroungers'? Presumably those who make legitimate claims under the rules aren't. Presumably these claims are policed, or we wouldn't hear about offenders. There doesn't seem to be any less a percentage of wrongful activity in this area than any other. Arguably, in some areas, the overall effect of such wrong doing is far worse; banking for instance. So, I take it, your 'benefit scroungers' are actually just the criminal element, who regrettably act throughout society, and yes, we'd all like to eliminate crime,

Then, should benefits be payable to anyone who 'hasn't contributed'. Interesting one that, what is a contribution? If that was really the case, what would happen if you took a fire insurance policy and next day your house burn down; would not the insurer pay out? So, if the 'economic immigrant' starts working, (the secret is in the word economic) they are working and contributing.

Blaming the nations economic woes and the nations failure to properly invest in the future on immigrants is a great diversionary tactic. Exactly similar to that used by the Lancashire Mill owners and the Coal Mine owners in the 1930s - it's all the fault of the workers!

Whilst this jolly diversion is going on of course, far worse and more frightening economic changes are occurring, which simply bypass the man in the street. For instance, our core utilities and core infrastructure is becoming physically owned and managed by European firms, new semi international trading legislation will enable global businesses to ride roughshod over local needs and opinions.

Given that most of the UK's productive economic activity is headquartered outside its boundaries and our natural resources are running down rapidly, our future looks rather bleak. A low wage; low intelligence economy

Be careful what you wish for....

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 19 2014, 07:51 AM

An idiot and a fool? Our discussion here is done.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 19 2014, 08:05 AM

They're what UKIP calls anyone who they don't want to pay benefit to. It's hard to make an argument that the disabled and those out of work should not receive state support, but call them "benefits scroungers" and the proles applaud as "straight talking" plans to limit their benefits.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 19 2014, 08:20 AM

This is Lord David Freud, Tory Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:

Simply arguing that the unemployed should be denied state support wouldn't be a very plausible argument in a relatively fair and decent society, but who would complain if you cast the unemployed as work-shy loafers, scrounging off the state.

But Lord David Freud has a point, here's a bunch of loafers who expect the state to finance their lifestyle for doing nothing:

Posted by: On the edge Oct 19 2014, 08:53 AM

That's rich! Coming from the House of Lords, which is demonstrably stuffed to the gunnels with people 'loafing about expecting the state to finance their lifestyle'.

The 'straight talking' is coming from a party which keeps itself solvent by taking seats and pay from the very institution they seek to abolish. Is that straight? It's certainly not principled or honourable. Arguably tantamount to 'loafing about expecting the EU to finance their lifestyle'.

It would be really interesting to know just how many UKIP apologists are actually fully paid up members.

Sadly, we've seen the usual result when debate us lost; resort to invective and insult.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 19 2014, 09:09 AM

I don't think the majority would deny the unemployed state support, nor do I think the majority of unemployed are work-shy loafers.

What I am saying is those that are not prepared to contribute should be denied benefits. Therefore the disabled would be given the financial help needed as would anyone searching for work. The cap on the amount is sensible too to discourage people from having more children than they can afford to raise, but allowing those on a low wage to have a family with support from the state.

Posted by: user23 Oct 19 2014, 09:45 AM

Just so I understand, as a UKIP supporter you'd like to see the disabled given the same amount of state support as someone who's unemployed and from this they would need to purchase mobility equipment or anything else to assist with their disability?

Additionally, you'd like to discourage people with a disability and receiving state benefit, from having children?

I just want to be clear about what you're proposing here.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 19 2014, 10:09 AM

Is this true? I don't believe there is anything stopping an independent country from negotiating its own deals with countries on these matters. Also, as far as a I can tell, UKIP stand for repatriation of sovereignty, not no immigration. UKIP want to be able to decide European based immigration policy, not the EU.

I don't see much wrong with that, but whether we should trust members of the UKIP party to run our country or not, is another matter.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 19 2014, 12:03 PM

No where have I said that? I don't agree with all that UKIP propose. However the other parties have made a pretty poor show of thinks including sorting out government departments at national and local level to serve the electorate rather than their own wishes or vision as to how things should be run.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 19 2014, 12:22 PM

Yes, bringing back sovereignty is one of their policies, indeed their signature policy. However, you seem to infer that UKIP have no policy on immigration into the UK, is that true?

As far as I can work out (and it is a populist approach) it is UKIPs policy to exit the EU so as to bring back sovereignty and amongst other things, if they won power in Westminster, they'd severely restrict immigration.

I think that UKIP should be seen as a whole, its members are the party. Same with the existing parties.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 19 2014, 08:32 PM

Perhaps the first thing to do is understand what infer means. Anyway, in simple terms, Simon and user were taking bollox with that argument; rather like the right wing twits do. It annoys me because they have good arguments, then they spoil it.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 19 2014, 10:02 PM

And how, in the brave new UKIP world, are the unemployed to "contribute"? Should we set them to work delivering public services, and stop the benefits of anyone not prepared to work for them? But now we have a surfeit of public service workers, shall we just sack the people formerly employed to deliver those services? That's actually quite a good plan, because at least the unemployed will be qualified for the public service work that they'll be obliged to perform for their state benefit.

I see that in the brave new UKIP world the state will be taxing workers in order to subsidise industry so that employers can pay workers less than a living wage with the state providing welfare payments to top-up their pittance. That's a surprisingly big-state socialist policy for UKIP. My preference would be to abolish family support and tax credits and all that socialist tosh that robs workers of their dignity and swells the civil service with administrators and minor functionaries, and abandon employers to the free market so that they had to pay their workers a living wage. But I'm just an Adam Smith liberal, so what do I know.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 20 2014, 12:38 AM

Where UKIP have been successful is in convincing many (most?) that EU = bad, UK = good.

I have to say that I don't see it that way - I see some pretty dubious policies coming from Westminster parties (which now includes UKIP) and many sensible policies from the EU. I quite like the concept of a United States of Europe.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 20 2014, 06:43 AM

That's a very good point and something that isn't ever properly explained or explored. One of the best examples is the US of course, and what ever its present issues, it is very successful.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 20 2014, 09:59 AM

Perhaps one should examine history to see why these 'socialist tosh' initiatives came in to being?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 20 2014, 10:01 AM

Have you any examples?


Doesn't that depend on how you measure success?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 20 2014, 11:47 AM

Well, the US started as a collection of independent states and colonies, realised the benefit of a big market with currency union and free movement of labour, then just got on with it. On the other hand, we've been wittering on and on and on since deciding to go in, how daft us that? Like taking ages before deciding to buy a car and then not using it because you don't like the colour.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 20 2014, 04:24 PM

I don't understand your argument. I'm not sure how appropriate comparing the federalisation of the US to the EU.

Posted by: Mr Brown Oct 20 2014, 06:08 PM

My ultimate boss always uses the American model to explain that there's nothing to be scared of by further integration. He's also a great one for claiming we had to join, because the only real market for our goods was the old British Empire; who weren't likely to keep buying our junk when they had a choice!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 20 2014, 06:17 PM

I'm not sure it is a matter of being scared, but the way the EU has behaved has caused concern. I think it has been created without a true mandate.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 20 2014, 06:39 PM

The difference with the US and the EU is the US states don't have the history of sovereignty that the EU countries have. That is what makes integration more difficult, whilst we can see the benefits of the EU, the electorate of all member states want to retain some of their history and tradition.

Posted by: x2lls Oct 20 2014, 07:31 PM

UKIP get my next vote

Posted by: On the edge Oct 20 2014, 08:01 PM

You are undoubtedly right! The EU does seem to have removed the biggest tradition; periodically knocking seven bells out of each other. I'm sure the sovereignty issue could be resolved, after all, we have a constitutional monarch and a ceremonial mayor - neither having any real power. Yes, we could survive on our own, provided no one minds the real consequences.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 20 2014, 08:10 PM

What, specifically, do you want to retain that we're losing under the EU. Curved bananas? Beer in pints? The rights of cousins to marry?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 20 2014, 08:14 PM

Sovereignty? Self-management?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 20 2014, 08:43 PM

Yes, but to repeat the question, what specifically do you want to exercise that sovereignty over in a way that is incompatible with the EU? Keeping out the foreigners? Is that it?

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 20 2014, 09:01 PM

Why can't you understand the difference between having some control over population size and keeping out foreigners?

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 20 2014, 09:05 PM

Don't get him on Allotmentgate again!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 20 2014, 09:19 PM

So it's not about keeping out the foreigners then, but it's about controlling the population size? Hold on though, doesn't Nigel Farage have four children? There's your population growth right there.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 20 2014, 09:58 PM

Moderating immigration seems reasonable to me, but also anything the nation wishes. I'm to a certain extent, playing devil's advocate, mind.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 20 2014, 10:03 PM

You're being silly. Even UKIP don't propose to keep out foreigners. You are making some strawman fallacies here and it does your position on this no good. Having said all that, I have read reports of some rather unsavoury quotes of a racist nature attributed to Nigel Farage, so I am not convinced of his sincerity.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 21 2014, 05:27 AM

Not at all. I'm trying to understand what it is that Monty Python doesn't want. If it's about limiting population size then it's the hight of hypocrisy for Farrage to personally contribute to a doubling of the population in a single generation.

If it is about keeping out the foreigners then I'd like to understand the motivation because keeping out the Polish or Portuguese from West Berkshire is a bit daft if you're not also going to keep out the Scots and Welsh, or the Northerners, or indeed the protect the border from the reivers of Hampshire, Oxfordshire, and Wiltshire, or the blareham boys from Thatcham and Hungerford.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 21 2014, 06:13 AM

Why do you always raise the racist card? I think you have the sense to see that in my case it is not the issue.

My main concern is we have some control of our own destiny. The ability to have some control on the number of people entering the country and trying to ensure that we have the very best my doing criminal records checks and prioritising those who have skills which we are short of will make this an even better country.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 21 2014, 06:56 AM

Its the categorisation. Lets consider, what skills are we looking for? Fruit picking and restaurant work are pretty unskilled jobs but are apparently desperate for labour. Criminal records, yes but how far? Should motoring offences be included or debt? If we really are totally 'full up' then stop ALL immigration.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 21 2014, 09:09 AM

Apart from stopping entry and childbirth, there is one other way of reducing the pressure of overcrowding on our infrastructure. That is encouraging people to leave. Perhaps that is a covert means being applied right now, after all seaside resorts have been complaining about unemployed people being 'dumped' in their towns and has been rightly said, Spain is full of UK expats. It looks as if the Welsh Assembly is using this idea if that voice of reason the Daily Mail is to be believed.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 21 2014, 09:26 AM

?????????????????? A re-wording perhaps?


It is not UKIP's policy to keep foreigners out and the UKIP party are called the United Kingdom Independence Party. I suspect, therefore, the vast majority on your list are disqualified from the argument.

From what I read, the problem I have with yours and OTE's position is that you are creating arguments that are not being made. UKIP's mission is to wrestle control over the UK's borders; not to stop immigration.

I do though suspect that that there is a racial element to this. I suspect many resent seeing an accommodation of minority religious groups that appear to 'threat' our way of life. I also think that many are concerned about a feeling of isolation in 'their own town', a feeling of being 'invaded'.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 21 2014, 10:24 AM

It's UKIP making the argument. I agreed back in the 1970s that we should have unrestricted border controls, because I voted to stay in the EEC - which even then included free movement! I cannot see what the difference us between someone coming here from North Scotland as opposed to someone coming from Holland. Save the distance from Holland is shorter. It's also interesting that UKIP us absolutely silent on the biggest uncontrolled border, Eire and Northern Ireland / UK. What's good for the goose etc...

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 21 2014, 10:36 AM

You and Simon's argument is to constantly talk about stopping immigration, but that is only a short term policy. UKIP's objective is to moderate immigration and not to discriminate between EU and non EU citizens.


One is already in the UK the other isn't! UK does not equal England.


I don't see your argument here, other than to maintain UKIP are a racist party; which officially it isn't (depending on the definition of racist).

Posted by: On the edge Oct 21 2014, 11:51 AM

I have never mentioned race in any of my responses. As far as I am concerned, UKIP and the Conservatives are anxious to tighten border controls to limit the number of people in this island. This is wholly at odds with treaties the Country has agreed in a referendum and several elections since. Whilst I can well understand the clamour to reduce the pressures on our national infrastructure, which avoids the difficult political decisions about spending the right sums to keep it maintained, I can't see they have provided any other reason for wanting to do this. Of course, we can watch the major entry points, but where does this stop? Yes, introducing the other borders might seem pedantic but it is an issue. Sadly many people DO resent any newcomers into their community, because they are different, even people who have simply moved a few miles down the road. Even round here, and yes, I've experienced it!

So again, why would we want to stop ANY free movement throughout EU?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 21 2014, 12:18 PM

I realise that, but I was trying to make sense of your point.


Probably because there is a 'shock' effect in countries with disparate economies and welfare systems. Poor countries loose good staff; prosperous countries devalue their less well-off workforce. In this whole debate, however, I distrust the official and unofficial figures we are fed. I am also concerned about the ease criminal gangs, both local and foreign, can operate in the current system.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 21 2014, 02:28 PM

The economic point is a good one. We've seen the reverse position of course where jobs have been exported. Call centre, manufacturing, application system creation, food production etc.etc. - which have done just as you've said, de skilling and devaluing our home workforce. Restricting immigration on that basis is a political message our masters would find far too uncomfortable, because the end result would be to keep prices higher. Crime knows no boundaries but again the issue is more than just formal boundaries. It means having joined up and effective Policing across the piece - yet even so, our dear leaders want to abolish the European Arrest Warrent. I'm certainly with you on the figures, it would also help considerably if the full implications of a common market were properly and calmly laid out - good and bad.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 21 2014, 07:29 PM

I can understand all of that if it's basically foreigners that you don't like, but not otherwise.

You haven't yet said specifically what it is about the UK's destiny that you want to control which Brussels currently prevents.

You need to say why you want to control people coming into the UK. You said it was about managing the population size, but you're not bothered about a rampant birth rate, so I don't think you're being straight.

If you want to control people coming into the UK to protect jobs then you don't understand economics - hard-working economic migrants actually create more jobs than they take.

If you want to protect stretched resources such as the health service then again you're mistaken because economic migrants hardly load the health service at all and pay a disproportionately large amount of its running cost, so sending them all back to Poland would actually hurt the health service because it would have it's funding cut by a lot more than the lightening of its load. The health service is stretched because while we've been happy as a society to expect an ever increasing level of service we haven't been willing to pay for it in taxes.

And if it's the shortage of housing that's your concern then the real challenge isn't the relatively small level of economic migration, it's the enormous draw of the south east on domestic economic migration from other arts of the UK, but that's not something you mention so I'm guessing it's the small number of foreigners that's the problem.

And then there's criminals. Or rather foreign criminals. I guess I'd be more interested if you could express your concern in terms that didn't include the foreignness and just dealt with the criminality, but really we do that already don't we - criminals are sentenced and that pays their debt. Seems reasonable to me to leave it at that.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 21 2014, 08:18 PM

I have already said I would love to get rid of our own criminals but don't expect other countries to take them.

America and Australia restrict immigrants with a criminal record I believe we should too! You obviously think we should welcome them!

Of course the fact that all immigrants are foreigners gives people like you a case for inferring people are racist.

I am beigining to think NTC may have had a case for calling you vexatious. You would certainly make a good politician as you appear unable to listen, just wittering on chanting the same old mantra hoping that others will start believing it as the truth.

I shan't waste any more time discussing with you on this thread

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 21 2014, 08:26 PM

Obviously we bar anyone with some of the more serious criminal records. Repeated burglary or theft, violent crime, rape etc. Not minor offences or the fact they are in debt.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 21 2014, 09:32 PM

I'll leave you to it then.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 21 2014, 09:35 PM

OK, fair enough, many would probably see that as reasonable. So then, presumably you'd also like to see border controls with Eire (which is a sovereign state) and potentially Wales / Scotland? That would made good sense because it would further restrict criminal movement. On that score, I'd also like to see debt above a certain amount included as that would stop the charletain financiers and such like.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 21 2014, 09:49 PM

Eire yes ideally, but would difficult to enforce with the land border to NI. Within the UK it is less practical - but really goes back to ensuring correct sentencing for crimes.

As for your opinion on debt and financiers I don't disagree with you but it would be more difficult to set the criteria as some debt may just be down to unfortunate circumstances.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 21 2014, 11:46 PM

Where did he say that?


Although I can see the logic in the argument, more and what jobs for who? And what about the less hard working and their families. I have a hunch that economic migrants have created a self-fulfilling economy, where the UK doesn't benefit much, but we have created a theatre for the activity. But point taken as it seems that immigration doesn't cause a rise in local unemployment, but it seems most low pay jobs go to immigrants. This is all hearsay on my behalf of course.


When was repatriation of EU migrants on the table?


This sounds feasible, but do you have data to back this up and could economic immigration from outside the UK who subsequently move to the south east add to this phenomena?


Being that we can't evict 'indigenous criminals', I see no reason why that should stop us from evicting 'foreign criminals'.


Like I've said already, UKIP don't propose to send anyone back home that doesn't deserve it and they also don't propose to stop any more people from coming here.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 22 2014, 09:40 AM

We now appear to have a home made issue with 'health tourists'. With the apparent collapse of the NHS in Wales it seems that many are seeking medical attention in England. With our own Regional Health Boards reportedly working at or just above capacity is this not going to simply just totally overload our English service?

Should we not restrict or at least limit the number of Welsh people seeking medical care in UK? Let's face it, given the proximity of Wales to us, just about an hour on the M4, it could well affect us individually. After all, hospital provision in West Berks is hardly lavish.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 22 2014, 09:57 AM

Interesting take on letting criminals in; I've just heard on the radio that we aren't supposed to be letting them in now. However, our IT systems that do the checking don't work and we haven't signed up for the (wait for it) pan European criminal record data exchange!! You couldn't make this up.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 22 2014, 10:06 AM

Theoretically, yes, but it would be good to get the full picture first. On the face of it this seems a case of 'make your bed and lie in it'.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 22 2014, 12:21 PM

Couldn't agree more. This is exactly what localisation should bring, it's up to the local people to decide what they want and how it's delivered. However, the consequence is, that some who disagree, will move to places that better suit their views. So far so good.

Now comes the rub; as illustrated in this case, the Welsh people have, for instance, enjoyed free prescriptions. It can be argued that as a consequence their health service has had less funding than ours. Is it fair then, that Welsh people should be permitted to 'slip across the border' and enjoy the benefits of our frugality?

Seems to me a case of having your cake and eating it!

I'd be up for UKIP if they could suggest how this one is sorted equitably and fairly....

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 22 2014, 06:42 PM

No party or policy truly determines or can do that so I see your your question (or premiss) as contrived.

The problem with ALL debates, ALL opinions and all other things that concern human beings or life itself is context, or to agree with an objective. All peoples' opinions are conditional and have draw-backs.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 22 2014, 06:53 PM

I think the rule is no-one has a right to a life so sort it out yourself and choose your weapons carefully.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 22 2014, 09:57 PM

Yes of course it's contrived. Just trying to illustrate that the UKIP / Right Wing Tory 'let's stop immigrants we don't like' isn't quite as straightforward or logical as they suppose. I don't quite understand your final comment - a truism, but are we not having a debate?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 22 2014, 10:02 PM

Yes, but perhaps we should agree on the objective before we can have a constructive debate, otherwise it is simply an exchange of 'truisms'.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 24 2014, 08:57 PM

I'm beginning to think Brussels want us to leave and get UKIP elected.
They seem to do something most weeks to annoy the British Public.
Because the British people have had to go through years of austerity and zero or low % wage increases the economy has finally started to gain strength.
Result = Give us another billion or two and lets all the help the French with a big rebate.
Tossers.............
Time for an in /out referendum. What is to fear? Democracy?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 25 2014, 07:10 AM

That's certainly what the headlines would suggest.

Let's look a little deeper. The real on this one is simply an adjustment on how we pay. That works a bit like PAYE which mist if us think is reasonably fair. However, the income figures get adjusted periodically. Of course, so far so good.

This latest problem was the result of a structural issue, in other words the rules about what is included were changed. We, or at least our public servants, were involved in this, knew about it and would have known the result. So, did they tell their political masters who chose to ignore the information?

So, the lesson I think we should take from this is that the whole of our democratic process is rotten and damaged, including the civil service. Even the timing and tenor of the announcement demonstrates that; don't we pay huge sums for 'professional' PR people in the public service?

The sudden announcement was spectacularly stupid.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2014, 10:02 AM

Or contrived.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 25 2014, 12:50 PM

May well have been, which would make it even worse. Sadly, given that the media is very quiet about it right now, one could also suspect the response was as well.

The sad thing is that these people (politicians and public servants) are supposed to be intelligent and working in the public interest, yet all they do us shout and scream. That's ALL of them. What a way to run a railway!

Posted by: Weavers Walk Oct 25 2014, 01:47 PM

Just to get things in perspective for a moment, the extra money asked for is a lot. BUT we managed to pay our top 25 bankers £7.5 billion between them in bonuses.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9643193/EU-budget-who-pays-what-and-how-it-is-spent.html

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 25 2014, 03:01 PM

Yes but of course they are the ones who actually run this country aren't they?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 25 2014, 04:07 PM

Yes, you are quite right. The EU say this is a technical adjustment, which we have known about consequently would have planned for. So then, why the explosion by our normally placid PM, why the big announcement by the EU? AndyC is probably spot on suggesting conspiracy.

Of course, in global terms it's a trifle as you rightly suggest. Just that Mrs Miggins doesn't see it like that, silly lady....

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 25 2014, 04:14 PM

Can I ask one question of all contributors to the forum?

Are you for a referendum on an in out vote of the EU? And I mean a straight question.

I think it's time for one. I'm sure others think that the British people are not "informed" enough for one to take place. But surely if we spend a few quid
(a couple of billion should do ) on a proper campaign by the various points of view the people will after a few months be "able" to be educated enough to make a choice.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 25 2014, 06:22 PM

A good question!

Yes, I'm for a referendum if only to stop the in or out debate. Although ironically, it didn't stop it after the last one in the 1970s. That became just a boxing match to choose between Tony Benn or Harold Wilson.

That does mean we ought to spend a bit on a real calm and considered education programme first.

In general, if they were given real information, I'd trust the electorate to come up with the right decision.

For the record, I'd vote to stay in if there was a vote tomorrow, but provided the 'stay in side' said they were also going to try and reform some of the bad aspects.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 25 2014, 07:22 PM

Yes, I think there should be an awful lot more direct democracy, for this and many other issues. It would be simple enough using the internet, and it should be used at all levels of government; national, county, borough, and parish. With the internet bringing direct democracy within reach of most of the population there's a good argument for doing away with MPs, and there's already virtually no point at all in local government councillors.

Posted by: motormad Oct 26 2014, 12:17 AM

I was watching Russell Howards good news and the UKIP song didn't half make me laugh!!!!

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 27 2014, 08:54 AM

Yes.

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 27 2014, 10:50 AM

Yes.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 27 2014, 11:18 AM

No.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 27 2014, 11:51 AM

Can you explain your choices? It means very little to anyone just knowing your personal choice, but if you can give some insight to why you would or wouldn't have a referendum then that's something to ponder and discuss.

For example, I have a feeling that the political class don't like referenda because they don't expect to get the answer they want, and that to me seems anti-democratic - isn't the idea of democracy that the best choice is the one that the majority of us want?

Posted by: JeffG Oct 27 2014, 12:08 PM

OK, if more insight is needed, I don't want an in-out referendum because there is a possibility it could go the wrong way.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 27 2014, 12:22 PM

Isn't a democratic decision the "right" decision by definition?

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 27 2014, 12:29 PM

Only if the majority make the right decision

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2014, 01:48 PM

No, not necessarily. A democracy doesn't necessarily provide the best (or right) choice; only the most popular. Most people may or may not believe in AGW, but that has no bearing on whether it is true, correct, right or not.

The problem with a simple yes or no is that if there is a narrow win on one side, then the wishes of the significant minority are ignored. It also overlooks the possibility that yes or no isn't necessarily the most agreeable or preferred choice. The other problem is that I suspect most people will vote yes or no regardless of the validity of their choice.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 27 2014, 03:23 PM

I disagree. There is no absolute right or wrong, there are just choices, and as there are no absolute standards by which to define the "success" of any choice, and as it's only possible to evaluate the choice that was taken, then the notion of one choice being any more "right" than any other is meaningless. All you have is the choice, and in a democracy you allow the enfranchised proles to assess for themselves, using whatever values and foresight they like, which is their preferred choice, and the choice of the majority gets it. Any other system disenfranchises the proles on the basis that their value judgements are in some way defective, where "defective" always comes down to making a choice that those in power don't like, but whereas majority voting by an enfranchised proletariat is what we call democracy, the alternative is a dictatorship or monarchy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2014, 04:07 PM

That's not my argument. My argument is that people making a choice may not make the one they actually wish, e.g. People may vote Labour in the belief that the party best represent the working man, but it might not be in fact true. Consensus doesn't necessarily provide correct. Winning or losing an argument (an election perhaps?) doesn't in itself mean that either argument is correct or not. I'd also like to ask you to digest the supplementary points I made in the same post you quoted.

I suggest that come election time few people actually make informed unprejudiced choices. If true, this makes democracy a flawed concept if we want what is best for Mankind and its environment.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 27 2014, 05:44 PM

Issues such as AGW are a little different as that's not so much a political concept on which all points of view are equally valid, but it's a scientific concept and if you believe in it you're right, and if you don't you're wrong. Non-scientists can find that absolutism of science uncomfortable, and down-right confusing when you understand that holding a position can be "right" one day, and then holding the same position can be "wrong" the next, but that's the nature of scientific truth I'm afraid.

So you could for example vote to define pi (the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference) to be exactly equal to three - one American state did just that. Even if the vote was unanimous it would still be wrong.

But on political issues, there is no right or wrong - but again there's a paradox, because one of the most powerful arguments that engages directly with our innate sense of natural justice, is that an idea is simply "right" or "wrong"! Take capital punishment. It's likely that a majority would vote in favour of it, and for this reason no government is going to give us the choice. There's a very good argument to be made that capital punishment is simply "wrong", and on balance I probably agree - personally I flip-flop a bit on this one, but it's wrongness is powerfully persuasive.

So to some extent I agree that the proles shouldn't be given the vote, but the yawning injustice of that statement also gnaws at me - it's a paradox.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 27 2014, 05:50 PM

I think you ask to much by expecting people to make rational informed choices. That's kind of my point - I don't think direct democracy will deliver the right answer to questions because people will make their choice for selfish personal reasons which frustratingly can often deliver a damaging result. It's like the tragedy of the commons or game theory - the problem is ill posed. Democracy is the worst of all forms of government - apart from all the others.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2014, 06:04 PM

I'm not asking or expecting people to be better informed and have less prejudice, but I do recognise that if left to the proles, they are capable of coming to the wrong decision. What we can do is modify the democracy we have; just because democracy is flawed, doesn't mean we have to abandon it altogether and adopt another initiative.

Like I suggested earlier, is it a healthy situation where 55% of people don't want something and 45% do, in a straight yes/no situation, that the 45% be ignored?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 27 2014, 09:26 PM

Does this mean you are in favour of Proportional Representation Andy?
Where every vote counts..... Its interesting. I have not heard the Lib Dems banging on about it quite as much as they used to?
I wonder why....
At the moment PR would most probably give UKIP the balance of power.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2014, 09:50 PM

I understand that UKIP's preference was for AV. I also feel AV is a more democratic voting system than FPTP, but of course, it doesn't get away from one of the main issues I raised earlier: voter ignorance.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 27 2014, 10:17 PM

Yes. Decisions have to be made, in or out, and if it's 49.999% in and 50.001% out then out it is - would you have it the other way around?

Of course there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority, but that's also an argument put forward by minorities who just want their way.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2014, 11:22 PM

You are being silly with your argument again, but no I don't otherwise accept your premise.

I asked is it healthy; I don't think it is. A life or death question where there are only two options, perhaps, but not on long term policy where there are more options available. A near 50/50 split suggests something else needs fixing before the question is asked. By ignoring a significant minority, you risk disunity and division.

I don't think that the EU is justifiably an exclusive yes/no decision, just like the Scottish independence vote.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 28 2014, 07:11 PM

Well thats given away which way you would vote then!

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 28 2014, 07:15 PM

That significant minority are still being ignored without the vote though, however they don't realise they are not in the majority - at least the referendum gives them the indication however close as with the Scottish debate.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 28 2014, 08:48 PM

The point is: fine in a situation when the winner in a 100m sprint wins the gold and every one goes home (FPTP), but an election is not determining the same outcome. A narrow win in an election is not emphatic in the same way.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 28 2014, 09:29 PM

Our present arrangement, via the coalition had thrown up an even worse situation. The minority party has far too much influence on policy.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 28 2014, 09:37 PM

But not having an election and therefore vote on the matter does not make those who would have lost any better.

I would not like to lose - a narrow margin would make it worse - but not having the right to have my say and have my opinion counted is worst.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 29 2014, 08:47 AM

Don't you think it's quite a good compromise though? Reigning in the excesses of the majority party?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2014, 09:35 AM

I don't think it is worse.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 29 2014, 10:27 AM

Frankly no.

It has lead to some very poor decision taking and some very muddled policies which have actually harmed the national interest. Energy policy is a prime example, the red neck Tory approach is to carry on regardless - solve the issues with unrestricted fracking and nuclear. The LibDem approach is green sustainable energy. So, given the first costs and potential returns for each approach, it's not surprised the energy industry have restricted investment and we are facing long term problems. Similarly in education, the Tory free for all against the LibDem nanny knows best had created confusion and muddle.

This coalition had been a loose loose situation. Moderation would, in my view, only come if the majority party ruled, without including the minority in the Government, arguably the way Labour see it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2014, 11:25 AM

I don't see those as examples of a coalition failure. Those are examples where no government in recent times dealt with looming issues. I see both of those as a failure of the last few governments failing to tackle the hard decisions by punting them in to the long grass; notwithstanding, thinking The Sleeping Bear of Europe would remain asleep.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 29 2014, 01:32 PM

You've got a comfy definition of failure! I'd have no issue with moderated Tory policies, which is what the electorate went for. What we actually have, is what I've probably badly explained, is an attempt to implement two separate and conflicting policies in several key areas. If the coalition was really that good, then they'd be campaigning to keep it going. Easy to see how the LibDems see it at least; Vince C has already been in 'deep and meaningful' with Labour!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2014, 02:29 PM

I doubt very much that energy policy would been much different than now had it been a straight win. We all know how 'robust' some manifesto commitments can be; remember the Tory's 'greenest party' boast. And even if energy policy has faltered under the coalition (I'm not sure it has), who's to say that the coalition hasn't been more successful elsewhere: a progressive low paid taxation and possibly a more progressive University finance policy than would not have otherwise happened, for instance. All conjecture of course.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 29 2014, 03:38 PM

Sorry, not convinced. Then we have that matinee idol Nick Clegg, suggesting he'd possibly be Deputy Prime Minister for ever. Albeit that this role appears to be as useful as the Mayor of Newbury, it's still giving undue priority to a small minority party. That's not first past the post and it ain't democracy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2014, 04:43 PM

It is a consequence of our version of FPTP and it is the democracy we have, not that I am endorsing the status quo of course. I think AV was a more democratic system myself, but whether it would have brought a more effective government is impossible to tell, but what is not right, in my view, is a party that attracted 36% share of the vote assuming a mandate has been won; more people voted against them, than for them.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 30 2014, 07:57 AM

Of course, as we've seen here and elsewhere, statistics and percentages can be made to mean or imply anything. Take the LibDem approach in West Berks, arguably a left wing approach, yet even according to their own stats, the right, the Tory vote is over 50%. Should the LibDem policy approach be so overtly influenced by the local Labour support of up to 4%? No, adding any sophistication simply magnifies the unfairness.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 30 2014, 11:55 AM

Sorry OTE, your argument is confusing me. How can the Tory vote be over 50% but they remain subservient to Lib Dems? Would you reframe the argument; I'm confused?

I'm not saying PR or AV provide more effective governance, but I do believe they are more democratic systems, i.e. they more readily reflect the mood of a country as a whole.

In/Out may be the question the partisan electorate might wish, but it might be that a 'devo max' option would be be more suitable and preferred by the majority. I'm broadly an anti federalist at heart, but I would let a good argument push me in a different direction.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 30 2014, 07:10 PM

Yes, reading it again, I have confused things, in the latter post, using the local example, here in West Berks. I suppose for me I'm really railing against the probity of the LibDems forming a coalition with the Tories; who seem to have a diametrically opposed ethos. The more honourable way forward, if Labour wouldn't play ball, would be to have supported a minority government without being in it. It used to be said that FPTP gave us strong government, because it delivered clear majorities; I must admit, that's something I'd agreed with. However, looking back, it's clearly not true and we've had in recent times minority administrations; classically the Callaghan one.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 5 2014, 06:44 PM

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study from a team of economists from UCL was featured on the Today Programme this morning on Radio4. They calculate the net contribution from European economic migration to Britain's finances to be £20bn. The best the balancing anti-immigrant campaign group could say was that in their view immigration contributed no more than £50 per head of the population to the UK economy - I make that £3bn - even that's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, no?

OK, so I understand that plenty of people object to immigration for other reasons, but I think that should nail the complaint that EU immigrants are overloading our public services. The cost of providing those services for the rest of us is borne disproportionately by EU economic migrants.

Posted by: MontyPython Nov 5 2014, 07:27 PM

Where does it say they are not helping to overload our public services? Any increase in population will. And where does it say they disproportionately bear the costs of these services. i doubt they contribute a higher amount than the average working UK resident.

Your just making some of it up again aren't you!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 5 2014, 07:41 PM

Rather than pay too much attention to the two partizan points of view, I'd like to think that there is a more balanced overview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29912945

Posted by: blackdog Nov 5 2014, 11:38 PM

The statisitcs Simon quoted shows that EU migrants pay billions more in tax than they take in state support - in terms of the overall tax bill this is a good thing (today). In terms of industry, GDP etc it is also a good thing, simply having more people working in the economy is crudely related to a bigger economy, higher productivity, higher GDP.

It is hardly surprising the EU migrants are a boost to our economy - they tend to be younger, fitter, and better educated than the average. And the vast majority come here to work. People cost more when they are old or unwell (or both) - the recent wave of migrants haven't got there yet.

Such migration will work well as long as they go home when they retire or before (as many may well do).

I was interested to hear Norman Baker's comment in his resignation letter: "the goodwill to work collegiately to take forward rational evidence-based policy has been in somewhat short supply". Strikes me this is a problem that affects all parties at all levels on migration and many other issues. No doubt these EU migration statistics will soon be brushed under the carpet as everyone tries to out UKIP UKIP.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 6 2014, 12:39 AM

That's a media myth, none of the main parties are doing that. All that is happening is that the parties acknowledge the danger of ignoring the appeal of UKIP. Such is the way the country is divided up, the Tories are 'forced' to move a little more to the right. If they don't they will lose potential to win an election, but the last thing any rational party wants is to lose the lower-wage/higher skilled potential immigration brings. It stands to reason that suppressing the cost of labour will provide a fertile ground to grow an economy. The problem is that for the low paid the advantage of immigration is all but invisible, but those same people see foreigners everywhere these days in 'their' space. This is bound to cause a sense of disenfranchisement.

Having said that, I don't see the findings as a good reason in itself to remain in a bloated federal Europe. I think we can have our cake and eat it. We can still have immigration if we want or need it and it would be nice to be in position to be able to decide. I also see the 'need' for immigration as evidence of failed domestic eduction and benefits policy.