***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 17 *****
As above.*
* this site does not endorse any political party in any shape or form. Any posts/links deemed offensive by moderators will be removed
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 20 Nov 14 at 10:10
|
>> Any posts/links deemed offensive by moderators will be removed
As above.
Apologies to those who contributed to the other thread but I've neither the time or will power to go through it and chop out all the dross and other argumentative stuff.
Seeing as someone resorted to name calling, insulting nearly everyone, and generally making a nuisance of himself in the other vol 16 of the UKIP debate, let's start this volume again from scratch shall we, and this time:-
No arguments,
No name calling,
No willy waving,
No bullying,
No insults - personal or otherwise.
If you want to go pick a fight with someone, then don't be a coward - go do it in the real world and not behind the safety of your keyboard.
Finally, behave yourselves or this thread will get the chop too.
|
So I stick my head above the parapet and go to enjoy Sunday and some sleep, and it's all gone???
Grown ups? I don't think so.
Not really much point in posting opinions at all.
Pat
|
>> So I stick my head above the parapet and go to enjoy Sunday and some
>> sleep, and it's all gone???
>>
>> Grown ups? I don't think so.
>>
>> Not really much point in posting opinions at all.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Pat, are you saying you missed it all?
Well, lucky you, is all I can say.
There were very few people doing actual insults - in fact only one person - at the time I went to bed, around 10.15.
My contribution was to send a complaint to the moderators and post something to the effect that it was little wonder that people left here and found another forum.
|
>>There were very few people doing actual insults - in fact only one person<<
I missed it all, our days always start by an alarm call at 2am ish.
I feel strongly that a good thread, with some good opinions posted by the vast majority of the forum members shouldn't be lost because of one person....yet again.
As you say, it is little wonder people go away and don't bother posting.
Having said that, I have every sympathy with the Mods over this recurring problem and feel it should be put to bed once and for all, by those who have the power to do so.
Fuming from Fenland.
|
>> >>There were very few people doing actual insults - in fact only one person<<
>>
>> I missed it all, our days always start by an alarm call at 2am ish.
>>
I did hear there was a vampires nest in the fens.....
|
"No willy waving"
That's me out. People would get hurt.
Last edited by: BiggerBadderDave on Mon 17 Nov 14 at 09:13
|
Best time of day, all the obnoxious so & so's have gone to bed!
I'd just laugh at it BBD:)
Pat
|
>> Best time of day, all the obnoxious so & so's have gone to bed!
>>
>> I'd just laugh at it BBD:)
you were fuming an hour ago.
|
Read my lips Z!
I didn't say 'I just laughed at it BBD'
Pat
|
|
I doubt it, sense of humour is clearly missing this morning.
|
>> Having said that, I have every sympathy with the Mods over this recurring problem and
>> feel it should be put to bed once and for all, by those who have
>> the power to do so.
>>
>> Fuming from Fenland.
How do you suggest putting it to bed once and for all? Genuine question, not anything hidden sarcasm or anything funny.
I have already said what the "rules" of engagement are. I have already spelled out to the person concerned how on this forum we consent to this behaviour regardless of whether we agree or not.
What more can I do?
The irony I find in all of this is that our society says racism is unacceptable and most agree with this because it protects people and produces a better society, but some of these same people feel it is ok to abuse others here on this forum despite the community rules of behaviour they agreed to!
|
I really don't have the answer to that one, I was rather hoping you would though, being the technical one!
My skills run to banning an IP address but I realise that a determined person will get round that, so my next suggestions would be to treat them as you do spam? :)
Pat
|
>> How do you suggest putting it to bed once and for all? Genuine question, not
>> anything hidden sarcasm or anything funny.
>> I have already said what the "rules" of engagement are. I have already spelled out
>> to the person concerned how on this forum we consent to this behaviour regardless of
>> whether we agree or not.
>> What more can I do?
Disable the person's account.
If they come back next week with a different log on, it will soon become apparent. Disable it again - and so on.
I complained about the person in question last night.
I complained about them on an earlier occasion.
I complained about them on HJ - if that has any relevance.
As far as I am concerned, the person has a lot of previous.
|
>> I complained about the person in question last night.
>>
>> I complained about them on an earlier occasion.
>>
>> I complained about them on HJ - if that has any relevance.
>>
>> As far as I am concerned, the person has a lot of previous.
I guess he is not getting a xmas card from you?
|
>> I guess he is not getting a xmas card from you?
If he is who I think he is, he can be remarkably helpful on occasions.
|
If its me that Duncan is obsessed with, (all very "Fatal Attraction") then all I can say is that when confronted with racists and bigots a red mist descends upon me.
And hell will freeze over before I care about offending them.
|
>> If its me that Duncan is obsessed with, (all very "Fatal Attraction") then all I
>> can say is that when confronted with racists and bigots a red mist descends upon
>> me.
Firstly, what if you are wrong.
>>
>> And hell will freeze over before I care about offending them.
Secondly, what happens if you offend others, do they have to just put up with it, because that's how you wish to be?
I see no reason why anyone cannot remain polite and respectful on here...or anywhere else for that matter.
|
I understand you are passionate about it. And that is a good thing IMHO. We also love a good debate here where polar opposites spar against each other.
But could I respectfully ask you to share your passion in a more constructive and respectful manner?
I remember when my son was playing county chess and the trainers got the lads to sit on their hands before making rash moves they would regret. They were all great players, but just that extra time needed to get their hands out from under them could prevent a spur-of-the-moment mistake.
Maybe we could all learn from this.
|
>> If he is who I think he is, he can be remarkably helpful on occasions.
Exactly.
|
>> Grown ups? I don't think so.
>>
>> Not really much point in posting opinions at all.
>>
>> Pat
Agree with above. There was quite a bit of interesting debate, particularly around the piece Roger posted. It's a pity the stuff after Mark called Stu stupid couldn't just be pruned.
Several of us expended time and effort in debate without insults (though it's difficult to avoid a factual conclusion that some opinions were overtly racist). I can live with others resorting to the playground but I'm less likely to take time posting stuff if it's going to be deleted willy nilly.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 17 Nov 14 at 10:06
|
|
I wasn't surprised to see the thread disappear, though I was a little disappointed to see it go as its development illustrated perfectly why UKIP has become so popular during the past few years.
|
|
Really, HW? It didn't strike me that way at all. Can you show us your working?
|
|
I explained the working in the previously deleted posts - you must have missed it.
|
>> I explained the working in the previously deleted posts - you must have missed it.
>
I had completely debunked it, point by point with unarguable evidence, alas it seems not to be there.
|
|
In a very short time, my splendid observation gained 3 thumbs-ups, no frownies, and no objections. I concluded that the logic was irrefutable and went to bed; I was gutted this morning when my work was no longer there, swept up and thrown out with the bile and the insults, the baby had disappeared with the bathwater.
|
>>I wasn't surprised to see the thread disappear, though I was a little disappointed to see it go as its development illustrated perfectly why UKIP has become so popular during the past few years.<<
You are quite right, Matthew Parris was perhaps the best example, not just his dislike of UKIP but of the kind of people who may vote for us. He took to writing off an entire town ( and the people in it ) as not worth bothering about. That sort of contempt for vast numbers of the voting public is frankly a gift but such is the arrogance of the people who think like that, they cant see they are helping us. I think opposition parties have played a key role in the perception of the party and not in the way they would have liked.
In some ways, the Greens will I think mirror this to an extent when the Lib Dems and Labour see them coming up on their Left flank, not at all sure what to do about it.
|
SQ
>> Several of us expended time and effort in debate without insults (though it's difficult to
>> avoid a factual conclusion that some opinions were overtly racist). I can live with others
>> resorting to the playground but I'm less likely to take time posting stuff if it's
>> going to be deleted willy nilly.
>>
He called Stu a scumbag, that was totally unacceptable IMHO
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 17 Nov 14 at 13:30
|
"He called Stu a scumbag, that was totally unacceptable"
Absolutely. Mister Scumbag when referring to me please.
|
I confess the disappearance surprised me. I had thought the site had relaxed the rules on abuse and people were getting away with it at last. After all it's a bit wimpish to mind when some ignorant fool you don't know calls you names. Who cares?
But the thread had become a bit ugly, with few meetings of minds. It would be tiring if they were all like that.
|
|
I don't think there was anything too malicious about removing it all; it is just sometimes easier when one is on an iPad and doesn't have the ease of control to do detailed pruning.
|
>>
>> He called Stu a scumbag, that was totally unacceptable IMHO
Not defending that usage but Stu prepared himself a very sticky wicket based on proposition that opposition to EU immigration cannot be racist and then went out to bat as though his life depended on it.
Unsurprising that it ended in tears.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 17 Nov 14 at 12:21
|
|
.. deleted the duplicate Bromtonaut
|
I was taught as a child that calling people names was both rude, childish and unacceptable.
I was dragged up proper..:-)
|
>>Not defending that usage but Stu prepared himself a very sticky wicket based on proposition that opposition to EU immigration cannot be racist and then went out to bat as though his life depended on it.<<
I didnt say it cannot be, I only suggest that it does not need to be for that reason and of course that in the UKIP policy context, the restriction on EU immigration comes alongside a continuation of non-EU immigration.
If it were a case of stopping people coming here as the guiding principle, the policy would be closing the border, not equalising the immigration opportunities of EU and non-EU immigrants.
I wouldnt say as if my life depends on it, it was a lively exchange but very common between extreme leftwingers and UKIP, I am now used to it, it hardly registers and goes with the job.
|
|
Who's an 'extreme leftwinger', Stu? Or does everyone look the same when you've only got one window to look through?
|
>>Who's an 'extreme leftwinger', Stu? Or does everyone look the same when you've only got one window to look through? <<
Someone to the Left of a standard Labour supporter. More in the SWP territory. Not all lefties are the same, far from it and I wouldnt think it fair to lump them all together. I may not agree with much from the Left, but I recognise there is a great deal of ideological room on that side of the spectrum.
|
|
And which one(s) of Bromp, AC, NoFM and me are you applying the label to?
|
>>And which one(s) of Bromp, AC, NoFM and me are you applying the label to? <<
Only the one that spent much of the deleted thread foaming at the mouth, extremists on the Left and Right tend to do it, very similar people in alot of ways, being abusive to people is part of their personality.
I dont consider anyone else here to be extreme at all, questioning but respectful at all times.
There is a Labour councillor I know, certainly different to me, but you have a fantastic, mature discussion with him of the kind that ive never managed with a Tory. Funnly old world.
|
>> Someone to the Left of a standard Labour supporter. More in the SWP territory.
Standard Labour is an odd concept these days. I am, and think I always have been, Croslandite Labour. By that of course I mean favouring the sort of welfare mixed economy propounded by the late Anthony Crosland in his book 'The Future of Socialism'. Historically, Crosland's sector of the party would be regarded as 'centre right', people who might identify with him included Healey, Jenkins and Hattersley.
The centre ground moved to the right under Blair and his crew, to point that there were Tories, most obviously Ken Clarke, who on objective assessment would be to left both socially and economically of the Labour leadership. I resigned from the party in around 2001/2 over backsliding on privatisation, on selection and most of all over the illiberal actions and views of first Straw and then Plunkett as Home Secretaries.
I'm no nearer the SWP than I was in 1978 but would now be on left of Labour. In spite of the headlines Ed, while less Blairite than his brother, is no red.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 18 Nov 14 at 16:26
|
In spite of the headlines Ed, while less Blairite than his brother,
>> is no red.
>>
He is to me.
|
"In spite of the headlines Ed, while less Blairite than his brother,
>> is no red.
>
He is to me."
Regardless of the shade of red that we think Ed might be - can anyone on here honestly imagine him cutting it on the world's stage when faced with e.g. that nice Mr Poot?
|
>> Regardless of the shade of red that we think Ed might be - can anyone
>> on here honestly imagine him cutting it on the world's stage when faced with e.g.
>> that nice Mr Poot?
He is only there because of the union leaders block vote. That, in my book makes him completely unsuitable.
|
>> He is only there because of the union leaders block vote. That, in my book makes him
>> completely unsuitable.
Now his brother I think would make a good leader. But the unions didn't want him so orchestrated it so he lost. And they got Ed instead. Genius move.
|
>> He is only there because of the union leaders block vote. That, in my book makes him completely unsuitable.
Suitable hardly comes into it. All the parties choose their leaders by traditional methods, which they then often overrule to choose someone else. So the party leaders are who they are and the leader of the party that wins a majority in an election usually becomes prime minister.
They're all suitable, and unsuitable too probably. It's the system.
|
>> He is only there because of the union leaders block vote. That, in my book
>> makes him completely unsuitable.
The Labour party was formed as the political arm of the trade union movement. While moving away to some degree that is still a strong link, reflected in the electoral college by which the party leader is elected. While it is true to say that the TU segment of the college swung it for Miliband E a more decisive vote in either the membership and/or parliamentary sectors of the college would have produced a different result.
Funding and influence is a stain across the whole of the UK body politic although the Greens and LibDems look less afflicted than Tories or UKIP. At least the Labour TU link is explicit and reasonably transparent.
|
>> At least the Labour
>> TU link is explicit and reasonably transparent.
>>
...and completely out of touch with what the British public now want.
If David Miliband were leader, which is what the Labour Party wanted, what with the skewed current electoral system regarding constituency sizes and the usual disillusionment with politics together with the current disillusionment...he would have been a 'shoe in' and we'd all be agreeing that the next govt would be Labour.
As it is, with Ed in charge, it's still anything goes.
|
>> Regardless of the shade of red that we think Ed might be - can anyone
>> on here honestly imagine him cutting it on the world's stage when faced with e.g.
>> that nice Mr Poot?
What real evidence do we have of his ability to 'cut it' in international politics? He wouldn't be where he is today if he cannot 'do' political deals. Cameron's not exactly covered himself in glory dealing with VP, nor have other western leaders whether Hollande, Merkel or indeed Obama.
We all need to remember too that neither he nor Cameron (or for that matter Farage) are standing for a presidency. They're party leaders and in government they'll be part of a team.
|
>> What real evidence do we have of his ability to 'cut it' in international politics?
For me the way he carries himself and his general persona, he's changed quite a bit in the past couple of months. Still far too late and too little, honestly he's so lightweight he looks as if a stiff breeze would blow him away.
>>
>> We all need to remember too that neither he nor Cameron (or for that matter
>> Farage) are standing for a presidency. They're party leaders and in government they'll be part
>> of a team.
>>
In theory yes, but he would be the face of the country, especially in international affairs.
|
>> In spite of the headlines Ed, while less Blairite than his brother,
>> >> is no red.
>> >>
>>
>> He is to me.
>>
You think he is actually a 'red'? Or some sort of out and out Socialist?
|
>>Who's an 'extreme leftwinger', Stu? Or does everyone look the same when you've only got one window to look through?
Well Mark isn't an extreme leftwinger of course; but perhaps he is as annoyingly patronising, didactic and hubristic as the stereotypical Islington leftie on this particular subject.
I did a stint in the bigot bin when I dared to suggest that to be human is to be more or less tribal, and was astonished by his absolute denial that he had any trace of such a tendency.
c4p's observation on the irony of the racism detectives thinking it perfectly acceptable to abuse others resonated with me - I had the same thought last night.
Neither of the principal insultees here is at all stupid. The insulters should restrict themselves to taking issue with the reasoning of posts they disagree with rather than bullying and belittling the posters. Both might then be able to understand something of the others' point of view.
Racism is a blunt, obsolete word that has largely served its purpose. We can't even agree on a definition. The focus on alleged 'racism' shouldn't legitimise victimisation and abuse of people for being supporters or members UKIP (for example).
Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the race of the person being discriminated against, and I have seen plenty of that from some very politically correct civil servants in the basement conference rooms of the DTI. I have also seen it here from people on the anti-UKIP side of the argument.
I don't have a side, usually. To me, it's never that simple.
|
>> Racism is a blunt, obsolete word that has largely served its purpose. We can't even
>> agree on a definition.
No NO and NO again. Not got time to do the full reasons now but while I've some sympathy with idea that definition is difficult the suggestion that it's 'served its purpose' , even in UK context never mind in wider world, is frankly risible.
|
>> >> Racism is a blunt, obsolete word that has largely served its purpose. We can't
>> even
>> >> agree on a definition.
>>
>> suggestion that it's 'served
>> its purpose' , even in UK context never mind in wider world, is frankly risible.
No offence taken, I am prone to risibleness.
You don't have to approve of racism, or think that it doesn't exist, to think that the word has become a weapon, not a concept, and is more trouble than it is worth.
|
>> You don't have to approve of racism, or think that it doesn't exist, to think
>> that the word has become a weapon, not a concept, and is more trouble than
>> it is worth.
Even if I were to accept, for purposes of this sub thread and no other purpose, that racism has become a weapon etc. I'd still be alarmed by any suggestion "it's served it's purpose"
|
I'd still be alarmed by any suggestion
>> "it's [the word racism] served it's purpose"
Bad drafting maybe. I'd accept "outlived its usefulness" as a correction.
I don't think it's a word that can be used disinterestedly any more. Far too black and white (ho ho).
|
>> Bad drafting maybe. I'd accept "outlived its usefulness" as a correction.
>>
>> I don't think it's a word that can be used disinterestedly any more. Far too
>> black and white (ho ho).
>>
Along the lines of 'cry wolf'.
Used so many times and in circumstances it's not warranted that it is ignored somewhat...which is rather a shame for those that actually need it.
|
>
>>
>> I don't have a side, usually. To me, it's never that simple.
>>
>>
>>
+11, I don't think I've seen such a high number. Like it or dislike it, Manatee's hit a popular chord with people here.
|
>> +11, I don't think I've seen such a high number.
yes, not surprised, annoyingly patronising, didactic and hubristic was a hellava classy insult.
|
was a hellava classy insult.
>>
So good I had google one of them.
|
>> He said "perhaps".
Yes, the touch of pure evil genius, give your victim a small crumb of hope.
|
To be honest I only paid attention to the insult bit, because I thought it was quite clever. I thought the rest was a bit boring.
One of the green thumbs was mine, but just for that insult.
|
I don't know what a extreme leftwinger is to be honest a communist? The majority of countries in the E.U. follow a policy of social democracy I think.Unions in France are strong also in Germany.I often asked my mother when she was still alive about Germany in the thirties.I grew up in a village about a mile from the border.People saw the war coming.
The E.U politicians created their own problem by allowing poor countries to join.Of course East Europeans going to travel for a better live and their children if the opportunity is there.
My perception of UKIP is that they create a fear factor about immigrants Hitler did the same in Germany about the jews.That is just my perception other people are allowed to feel different.
I've spend many hrs in Germany my Grandfathers second wife was German.She used to spoil me rotten with cakes and good food.>:)
|
>> I don't know what a extreme leftwinger is to be honest a communist?
Some of the left-wingers I've known regarded the Communist Party as very backward and reactionary Dutchie. I did myself for a while, although - or perhaps because - I am basically politically illiterate. There used to be a lot of idealism and wishful thinking about a few decades back.
But one grows up eventually, and times keep changing just to keep one on one's toes and in a state of confusion and anxiety.
God I need a drink... but I have to wait a while yet.
|
Did I miss some insults?
May I take them as read ? :-)
|
>> Just to show that the "respectable" parties can be pretty nasty......
Oh come on Roger. Nasty is an essential tool, built into the system of bourgeois democracy along with a few other, better things. The existing parties are past masters at it, the fine Italian hand and all that... you Kippers are babes in arms by their standards, believe it.
|
|
Can't be bottomed to read it but it's my nomination for Headline of the Week.
|
>> Nasty is an essential tool,
>> The existing parties are past masters at it... you Kippers are babes in arms by their standards, believe it.
Good observation. Equally outrageous dissembling too, usually much better disguised. Plausibility has to be worked at.
|
>>Did I miss some insults? May I take them as read ? :-) <<
Ive been drawing fire for you Roger, East Midlands division at your service Sir, guest spot only :-)
|
>> My perception of UKIP is that they create a fear factor about immigrants Hitler did
>> the same in Germany about the jews.That is just my perception other people are allowed
>> to feel different.
My perception is that they wish to control immigration, not stop immigration..something along the same lines as Australia.
I wholly agree with that.
I have no problem with migrants coming here...the bottom line is we need them.. but I think we should block the especially needy ones, we cannot possibly afford to be the world's welfare agent.
That might sound harsh..but it's a reality. We should be encouraging the rest of the world to be looking after their people in the same fashion we look after ours.
|
>> My perception is that they wish to control immigration, not stop immigration..something along the same lines as Australia.... I wholly agree with that.
So do I. We need migrants. But not those coming to seek benefits and not contribute.
|
>> So do I. We need migrants. But not those coming to seek benefits and not
>> contribute.
I suspect though that point misses the real issue. The real numbers coming from EU for benefits alone are pretty small. Myths amongst those seeking asylum (anywhere) about UK as a land of milk and honey are a different question. We really need to make sure they understand the reality.
In terms of EU migration if you're unskilled/low paid then there's a real issue. Employers use agencies to bring in labour from say Hungary (see Northampton sandwich factory) rather than offer wages/conditions aligned to the local jobs market. And that's the mild end - see gangmasters etc. There needs to be some proper enforcement of the minimum wage and much closer controls over exploitative practices whether in the care industry or crop picking.
|
The whole issue of people's desire to control immigration is extremely complex and driven by many factors.
One issue that gets lost amongst the arguments of us needing immigrants that are willing to work in the jobs that the indigenous workers see as poorly paid and menial, or the emotive 'they're all coming for benefits' is the impact of the skilled immigrant on the indigenous skilled workforce.
There is a definite upturn in the construction industry at present but the very people who should be seeing the benefits of this, the traditional blue collar skilled trades are not seeing much benefit at all.
I was discussing the issue with my son over the weekend, a 'sparks', and he was describing a current East London site he experienced.
On that site there were 17 'sparks', but he described it as the 'League of Nations', of the 17 he said that four were Brits, there were two Aussies, a Kiwi, a Jamaican, the rest were split between Polish, Lithuanian, and a Romanian. He went on to say that the plumbing was being done by a Polish company employing Poles, the dry lining by a Romanian company employing a myriad of nationalities and the 'chippies' were also Polish.
As he put it they get the work because they are able to undercut any tender because they are happy to 'do an Auf Weidersehn, Pet', living, in some cases 4 to a room or even in the back of their vans so then can send the majority of their money back home where what they are able to send back is more than they were earning at home.
Now, we can argue that this is market forces in the raw however it is market forces in a false market created by workers coming from countries with very divergent economies, wage levels and expectations to our own.
The ongoing problems from this false market is that it distorts our own economy disproportionally, if skilled wages are being held artificially lower than they should be by the exertion of outside factors then the 'feel good factor' from a growing economy are diluted, an phenomenon already being commented upon in financial and political circles. If the skilled trades find their wages being depressed in this way then they will be unable to spend and the recovery will not filter through into retail where some of the lowest wages are paid and therefore there will be no 'trickle down' effect; result a potentially stagnating economy.
The fact is the majority of the skilled immigrants are coming to work and are attracted by the large diversity of their economies from ours. It is perhaps evidenced by my son saying that he can now swear fluently in four Eastern European languages; but never has to use the French, German and Spanish he learned at school......
The only real solution to this that I can see is to try and control levels of permitted immigration from those economies that are massively divergent from our own; quite how is the $64000 question as I feel the genie is now well and truly out of the bottle.
|
>> The whole issue of people's desire to control immigration is extremely complex and driven by
>> many factors.
>> One issue that gets lost amongst the arguments of us needing immigrants that are willing
>> to work in the jobs that the indigenous workers see as poorly paid and menial,
>> or the emotive 'they're all coming for benefits' is the impact of the skilled immigrant
>> on the indigenous skilled workforce.
>>
>> There is a definite upturn in the construction industry at present but the very people
>> who should be seeing the benefits of this, the traditional blue collar skilled trades are
>> not seeing much benefit at all.
So where are all the unemployed "indigenous workers"? The truth is unemployment is falling, that can't be possible if everyone is coming over here to steal our jobs. I know two indigenous builders, I want one of them at least to do some work on my mothers house. Both are snowed under with work.
What is a national embarrassment is the sheer lack of chances for people to train in the trades.
|
>>My perception is that they wish to control immigration
Who is "they"? The official party in their policies, the PR spin, random statements? the inner desire of many of the supporters and/or members?
>>we cannot possibly afford to be the world's welfare agent
Of course not. We cannot even afford to be our own.
We should be stamping down on benefit abuse (with a wide definition) wherever it comes from, home or international.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 18 Nov 14 at 21:49
|
Not quite sure I see the problem with importing 10s of thousands of English-speaking Poles/Czechs/Slovaks/Lithuanians who have been raised by their parents and educated to a high degree (often Uni level) at no direct cost to the UK and then graft away paying their taxes, fuelling our economy.
Does that make me a communist?
|
>> Does that make me a communist?
Of course the majority on here don't think that. I hope!
Those coming to claim benefits is an issue. A bigger issue again are those born in the UK claiming benefits when they are able to work. But all the parties are afraid of addressing that. UKIP probably don't care about that as that is not part of their agenda.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 19 Nov 14 at 00:09
|
The actual slice of Govt spending allocated to unemployment benefits is pretty miniscule (less than 1% of spending iirc) and massively outstripped by the amount spent on housing support, family credits to boost the low paid (basically a tax on everyone to supplement crappy wages), and child benefit (see previous brackets).
Surely increasing minimum wages while leaving benefits unaltered helps to reduce the need for 'welfare support' for working families and the tax burden it creates, while also increasing the gap between the benefit of working vs not working.
Equally why does being on an invalidity type benefit mean you get more money than someone looking for work? Perverse incentive to see me for a sick line rather than sign on? You betcha.
Our country is being shafted by its inability to see high house prices as simply an insidious form of inflation.
"Healthy Housing Market" when prices are going up? Ballcocks.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 19 Nov 14 at 00:35
|
|
The biggest problem as you allude to are the UK born people on benefits. But UKIP will focus on others coming here.
|
|
That's exactly what he doesn't say, RTJ. Yes, a few do it, of course, but it's mostly a political device to give the mythical 'hardworking families' someone to feel superior to.
|
>> That's exactly what he doesn't say, RTJ. Yes, a few do it, of course, but
>> it's mostly a political device to give the mythical 'hardworking families' someone to feel superior
>> to.
Neither is there much evidence of the slackers being regarded as untouchable.
The unemployed are also those at the sharp end of cuts etc. These include real reductions in benefit, the 'bedroom tax', changes to the signing on regime and sanctions. Some of these hit the sick too.
And while London and the SE are generally booming there remain areas of massive deprivation, usually following the loss of traditional industries. Sometimes the boom towns and the bust ones are cheek by jowl - see (a) Rochester and (b) Strood.
The former prosperous with new build, posh shops on the high st and visitors doing its history etc. Strood OTOH is still under shadow of closure of Chatham docks and other dissapered major employers.
|
>> Equally why does being on an invalidity type benefit mean you get more money than
>> someone looking for work? Perverse incentive to see me for a sick line rather than
>> sign on? You betcha.
Because benefit for those able to work is meant to be subsistence; literally limited to the basics. What Income Support assessments used to describe as the minimum amount the law says you need to live on. There's an element of incentive to actively seek work.
Sickness OTOH is probably ongoing and may place demands on the claimant including extra heating etc.
|
We also have prescription charges to find down here when off sick.
Pat
|
>> We also have prescription charges to find down here when off sick.
>>
In fairness most people don't pay the charge in England either.
|
Really?
I'd love to know how because I could pass the advice on.
Pat
|
He's absolutely right.
Nine in 10 prescription items in England are handed out free as those exempt include the under 16s, over 60s, pregnant women and those on low incomes.
Source BBC
|
"Nine in 10 prescription items in England are handed out free"
I can believe that.
If you have a regular prescription(s) and don't qualify under those rules mentioned by CG, then it may pay to get a NHS prescription charge certificate.
www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/1127.aspx
|
>> Nine in 10 prescription items in England are handed out free as those exempt include
>> the under 16s, over 60s, pregnant women and those on low incomes.
And those people who regularly take medication (eg, diabetics)
|
Absolutly yes, here is some help on who can get them for free.
www.nhs.uk/nhsengland/Healthcosts/pages/Prescriptioncosts.aspx
Figures change from year to year but last lot I saw it was about 88% of prescriptions were free.
|
As y'all will be aware Scotland/Wales/NI have no prescription charges, and to be honest I can't say I've seen any increase in requests for stuff people could simply buy at ASDA/Tesco just because they can get it on prescription.
My take on it is that anyone who would sponge free prescriptions for paracetamol and antihistamines is very unlikely to actually work for a living in the first place.
|
|
My GP friend who is going through a period of despondency informs me that some of her prescription requests are from more well heeled folks who could well afford to buy over the counter medication.
|
>>My GP friend who is going through a period of despondency
General Practice morale is, on the whole, very poor and in many areas disastrous currently.
Worse I think than it was in 2001 when we took 2 years to fill a partnership vacancy due to a lack of GP trainees.
Currently something like 65% of medical graduates and 70& of GP trainees are women, many (if not most) of whom are having their families while going through training or soon thereafter, and then not taking up full-time jobs.
This situation was entirely foreseeable over the past 15 years but each government has failed to address numbers.
GP pay has fallen back to below the level it was when the new contract came out in 2004 (adjusting for inflation) and Australia beckons with less intense workloads and 20-30% higher incomes.
Every medic that goes to Oz is a waste of 400 grand of training - 400 grand that Australia doesn't need to invest.
|
>> Who is "they"? The official party in their policies, the PR spin, random statements? the
>> inner desire of many of the supporters and/or members?
From my angle, the official party
>> Of course not. We cannot even afford to be our own.
>>
>> We should be stamping down on benefit abuse (with a wide definition) wherever it comes
>> from, home or international.
Agreed
|
The elephant in the room in immigration is unskilled immigration from largely teh Commonwealth plus Iraq, Somalia, other African countries subject to war, perstilence , ffamine etc.
The facts are they cost a fortune to house and feeed - no English, no skills and often arranged marriages.
Many are from Pakistan.
Politically a hot potato..
UKIP will no doubt dissolve the Commonwealth and solve the problem.
|
>> ffamine etc.
Is that a shortage of leeks?
|
It isnt all that easy to get a visa coming from a Commonwealth country at the moment, certainly not with leave to remain, my brother-in-law is highly qualified and married to a UK citizen, yet still had to come with a bundle of cash to get his visa. I doubt he would be here at all if he was unskilled, it was hard enough with a degree.
If there is an easy way, it isnt obvious.
|
UKIP policy is that we must have controlled immigration, from whatever part of the world a possible immigrant may come from.
We suggest a points based system, such as Australia has, with much the same criteria.
UKIP accepts that the UK has a need for some immigrants, but wants the country to be able to choose those whose skills and talents are needed, who will actively contribute to the country and who will not immediately be a burden on the health or welfare systems.
For this to be seen as fair, it must apply across the board, which currently it cannot as we are bound by the unrestricted free movement of labour from E.U. member countries, as part of the European Union treaties.
|
>> UKIP policy is that we must have controlled immigration, from whatever part of the world
>> a possible immigrant may come from.
>> We suggest a points based system, such as Australia has,
...which is rather a large leap to be turned into 'UKIP doesn't like or want immigrants'.
It's the same old story. For some people, if they don't like something they will go for an extreme end of an arguement to make their point look more acceptable.
I have no doubt that some voters of UKIP are those in society that 'don't like foreigners'.... however, equally so there will be plenty who have no problem at all, but do wish for more controls and something similar to the Australian system.... and that sort of voter profile will be no different to many who vote for the Tories or Labour.
The reason why UKIP have become so popular is the mainstream parties have ignored the subject matter (this one and others) and the ordinary voting man/woman doesn't like that.
You have to ask yourself why has it been ignored? Well that will be because many are uncomfortable even discussing it, for fear of being branded racist, even if they are not.
Thankfully UKIP seems to be releasing that genie from the bottle.. and I for one am glad.
|
>> UKIP policy is that we must have controlled immigration, from whatever part of the world a possible immigrant may come from.
We suggest a points based system, such as Australia has, with much the same criteria.
I think that is fair system. UK had a similar system before for non-EU migrants.
Most EU countries are too different on economy an culture. So, anyone from outside UK should be treated in equal manner.
|
>> The elephant in the room in immigration is unskilled immigration from largely teh Commonwealth plus
>> Iraq, Somalia, other African countries subject to war, perstilence , ffamine etc.
>>
>> The facts are they cost a fortune to house and feeed - no English, no
>> skills and often arranged marriages.
>>
>> Many are from Pakistan.
>>
>> Politically a hot potato..
Really?
Can you give us the numbers for 'at peace' New Commonwealth immigration (ie India/Pakistan, East Africa etc) + asylum with/without right to work? Why is it an EITR right now?
Impression is that coalition are onto this. Reason they cannot neet the target (Mrs May now says it's an aspiration) of 100k pa by 2015 is wholly down to free movement within EU.
EDIT - There are some numbers here:
www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/britains-70-million-debate/4-migration-non-eu-nationals-effects-recent-policy-changes-net-migration
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 19 Nov 14 at 15:48
|
UK population born abroad.. tinyurl.com/ln32qlq
Country of birth Population (2001 census) Population (October 2012 ONS Estimate)[9] Corresponding article(s)
United Kingdom 53,923,642 54,233,000
Republic of Ireland 533,901 403,000 Irish migration to Great Britain
India 467,634 729,000 Indians in the United Kingdom
Pakistan 321,167 465,000
The International Passenger Survey estimates shows India as the top country for people coming to the UK with 11.9% of all immigrants. It's followed by Pakistan, (5.8%), Poland (5.4%), Australia (5.2%) and China (5.2%). That has changed a lot since the early-1990s, as the animation above shows, when Germany was the top country. It also shows that most people emigrating from the UK go to Australia, followed by the USA
tinyurl.com/oyvv3h9
LOTS more info.
I stand by my comments...
|
So over a period where the British-born population has remained fairly static (with increasing numbers of retired/elderly amongst them) the level of employment has also jumped up.
1996 20.9% of UK households were 'workless'.
2014 15.9% " " " "
tinyurl.com/qhyx5er
Kinda suggests these 'unskilled immigrants' you refer to are coming here to work.
What's the problem again?
|
>> What's the problem again?
Well they're foreign innit. They're not like us. Their food smells funny. My mum says you don't know what they put in it. They groom our kids too and give them drugs and that. They all look the same. Most of them are muggers or worse. There's a radical mosque in our street, they're always moaning and shouting in there. Round where my auntie lives she says it's more than your life's worth to say you're a Christian. They try to come in the pub but we don't talk to them. Their beards look dirty to me. Some of them shave their heads, what's that all about then? Etc Etc...
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 19 Nov 14 at 17:50
|
|
True, but Glaswegians make up a tiny proportion of the UK.
|
>> I stand by my comments...
But you've moved the goalposts from current arrivals (Iraq, Somalia etc, no English, need housing etc) to every surviving member of The Windrush generation and subsequent arrivals over 60 odd years.
A very different case.
|
>>My perception is that they wish to control immigration
>>Who is "they"? The official party in their policies, the PR spin, random statements? the
>>inner desire of many of the supporters and/or members?
or Mark Reckless??
|
I like Mark Reckless....
He is what UKIP needs to prevent them attracting too many Tories and Labour voters.
Grade A Helmet material and so obviously 'in it for himself' he might as well change his name to Boris.
|
"Grade A Helmet material"
It's desperate, isn't it, what does that say about the Lib/Lab/Con candidates?
|
Not sure but I wan't impressed with the Conservative lass talking about Mr Reckless 'lying' about the Tory campaign either (on Radio 4 news).
After a boisterous but engaging Referendum campaign up here it's quite depressing to see these poor quality folks trying to upstage each other (that's not to say Jock politicos are worth the wee it would take to drown them either).
Obviously the stakes are high, probably mostly for the Conservatives - if they get pumped tomorrow there's going to be much dirtier campaigning to come.
|
In the past the Lib Dems were always the party of protest, however come the general election everyone went back to voting for the big two. Do you think this will be the same with UKIP or is this something different ? Are the disaffected Conservative voters who are currently backing UKIP going to vote Conservative when it comes to the crunch for fear of letting Labour back in ?
Sorry if that's badly put but it's been a long day !
|
>> In the past the Lib Dems were always the party of protest, however come the
>> general election everyone went back to voting for the big two. Do you think this
>> will be the same with UKIP or is this something different ?
I think, in principle, a large element of UKIP support in by-elections and local govt/Euro elections too is protest that will slide back to main parties in a general election. However, political disillusionment and low turnouts may turn that presumption on its head in a few places.
UKIP might also learn the Liberal tactic, adopted by Alliance/LibDems, of focussing on winnable seats and blitzing them. They might though struggle to attain the Liberals focus on being highly effective at a local level which was a key factor where they've won clusters of seats.
|
>> so obviously 'in it for himself' he might as well change his name to Boris.
Surely there's a long list of more venal and ambitious candidates than that? BJ has more in his head than personal advancement I think.
|
UKIP Debate - Volume 16 - VxFan