General Election 2015

[Wes Tender]

Its going to be a total lottery - decided by whichever parties' supporters are more disenchanted. Much of Labour's vote will stay home, Tories will switch to UKIP and defecting LD voters will decide who gets in.

 

Yes, I agree. It will be the most difficult election to call accurately for many a year. I suspect that the Lib Dems will get anihilated and either the SNP could end up helping Labour into power, or UKIP could help the Conservatives back into power. There is going to be a lot of tactical voting which could skew the outcome in key marginals.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Does anyone actually like Cameron?

 

I mean, if you aren't a Tory you are going to hate him. He's everything about the Tories you are going to hate, and his face is particularly annoying. But, do the Tories even like him? Real lack of decent political leaders around at the moment.

[Whitey Grandad]

Does anyone actually like Cameron?

 

I mean, if you aren't a Tory you are going to hate him. He's everything about the Tories you are going to hate, and his face is particularly annoying. But, do the Tories even like him? Real lack of decent political leaders around at the moment.

 

You don't have to like a PM, it's not a popularity contest. At least, it shouldn't be.

[hypochondriac]

Does anyone actually like Cameron?

 

I mean, if you aren't a Tory you are going to hate him. He's everything about the Tories you are going to hate, and his face is particularly annoying. But, do the Tories even like him? Real lack of decent political leaders around at the moment.

 

Nick Clegg is the most electable bloke in terms of personality and how he comes accross in the media. Shame his party and policies (and reneging on deals) make him unelectable.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

You don't have to like a PM, it's not a popularity contest. At least, it shouldn't be.

 

Cmon Whitey, you know exactly what I mean. Do Tories, or anyone else actually think he is any good.

 

For all the 'it's not a popularity contest', plenty of people do still think like that. Hence the emphasis on leaders, and the stupid debates.

 

Nick Clegg is the most electable bloke in terms of personality and how he comes accross in the media. Shame his party and policies (and reneging on deals) make him unelectable.

 

I'd be inclined to agree. Still find it baffling Greens don't have Lucas as a leader. She seems to come across far better than Bennett. Lucas always seems to come along pretty well. They could potentially do ok (relatively, of course), but they still at the stage of maturing and sorting out the weirder elements before they can go more mainstream I think.

 

Bit like UKIP trying to sift out the nutters, racists and dinosaurs (they havn't been entirely successful at this yet).

[buctootim]

Still find it baffling Greens don't have Lucas as a leader. She seems to come across far better than Bennett.

She was the leader and gave it up, presumably her choice - she has a youngish family. .

[KelvinsRightGlove]

She was the leader and gave it up, presumably her choice - she has a youngish family. .

 

Ah ok, I thought she was. Was pretty confused when Bennett took the mantle.

 

That makes more sense, and is fair enough really. Thanks for clarifying.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Lucas is another privately educated career politician .

[SuperMikey]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/feb/27/guardian-poll-projection

 

So with voter intentions at the moment it looks like the only way that we could get a majority is with a Labour/SNP/Lib-Dem coalition. Potential for a real swing with the debates, so why is Cameron so hesitant to get involved when it can potentially help him secure his party's victory - something that's looking more and more unlikely.

[Whitey Grandad]

Cmon Whitey, you know exactly what I mean. Do Tories, or anyone else actually think he is any good.

 

For all the 'it's not a popularity contest', plenty of people do still think like that. Hence the emphasis on leaders, and the stupid debates.

 

I knew that

 

I think he's the best of a bad bunch. These are politicians and all that goes with it. His job is more of a chairman than a managing director and he has to keep control of a collection of rogues and shysters with enormous egos. I've met quite a few of these MPs in the course of my dealings and whilst some of them have been decent people trying to get things done they're all banging their heads against a wall.

[ecuk268]

You don't have to like a PM, it's not a popularity contest. At least, it shouldn't be.

 

Exactly. The opposite also applies.

 

I quite liked John Major. He seemed quite an affable bloke and so does Cameron when he's not being Prime Minister and also Farage (but I think it's an act with him trying to play down his privately educated, City trader background), but I wouldn't vote for any of them.

[st alex]

Which UKIP policies did you have in mind that don't sound as logical as those that Batman made up? Come on, give it your best shot.

 

 

There is a Utopian world and an ideal world, but most of us have to live in the real world.

 

I've never seen a UKIP policy which is based on any logic. Why don't you name a UKIP policy that does makes logical sense? one that's solving an actual problem using actual sense.

 

Anything I've heard them say is reactionary stuff related to exaggerated issues. Their strongest argument is that the EU budget is too big. But to be honest the UK government is perfectly capable of ****ing away taxpayer's money anyway, whether it's done in London or Brussels makes no difference to me.

 

Why issues like immigration are high up on anyone's agenda is beyond me. I couldn't care less where my neighbours, friends or colleagues were born. I'd much rather see a government tackle housing, the environment, nhs & healthcare and most importantly to improve the standard of living (for everyone).

 

As always in politics too much emphasis is on money and the economy. This shouldn't be the leading issue, it should be focused on improving the quality of life for the population and financial security should be just one of the key components of this.

 

Just because the real world isn't an ideal world that doesn't mean that we can't make it as close to an ideal world as possible.

[Batman]

I've never seen a UKIP policy which is based on any logic. Why don't you name a UKIP policy that does makes logical sense? one that's solving an actual problem using actual sense.

 

Anything I've heard them say is reactionary stuff related to exaggerated issues. Their strongest argument is that the EU budget is too big. But to be honest the UK government is perfectly capable of ****ing away taxpayer's money anyway, whether it's done in London or Brussels makes no difference to me.

 

Why issues like immigration are high up on anyone's agenda is beyond me. I couldn't care less where my neighbours, friends or colleagues were born. I'd much rather see a government tackle housing, the environment, nhs & healthcare and most importantly to improve the standard of living (for everyone).

 

As always in politics too much emphasis is on money and the economy. This shouldn't be the leading issue, it should be focused on improving the quality of life for the population and financial security should be just one of the key components of this.

 

Just because the real world isn't an ideal world that doesn't mean that we can't make it as close to an ideal world as possible.

 

Listing UKiP policies to you would make no sense. You wont like any of them.

Much like listing Green/SNP policies to me. Wont bother listening.

 

I have voted both Labour and Tory in the last 14 years or so. I am UKiP at the mo but not sure if any of the other two will do enough to win my vote.

 

 

UKiP policies I like (and they may be barmy to you etc)....

 

 

 

UKIP will leave the EU and save at least £8bn pa in net contributions

 

UKIP will cut the foreign aid budget by £9bn pa, prioritising disaster relief and schemes which provide water and inoculation against preventable diseases

 

UKIP will abolish the Department of Energy and Climate Change and scrap green subsidies.

 

Subject to academic performance UKIP will remove tuition fees for students taking approved degrees in science, medicine, technology, engineering, maths on the condition that they live, work and pay tax in the UK for five years after the completion of their degrees.

 

We will ensure that visitors to the UK, and migrants until they have paid NI for five years, have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK, saving the NHS £2bn pa. UKIP will commit to spending £200m of the £2bn saving to end hospital car parking charges in England

 

UKIP will not give prisoners the vote

 

UKIP will withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights

Edited 11 March, 2015 by Batman

[Wes Tender]

Does anyone actually like Cameron?

 

I mean, if you aren't a Tory you are going to hate him. He's everything about the Tories you are going to hate, and his face is particularly annoying. But, do the Tories even like him? Real lack of decent political leaders around at the moment.

 

It's a shame that people are so shallow that they might be put off voting for a party not on grounds of their policies or ability to run the country, but instead on whether the party leader is "likeable."

 

But what you say about Cameron could equally be applied to Blair for those who weren't Labour. His stupid inane grin, his privileged public school background, which looked even more out of kilter with his working-class Sedgefield constituency. But did Labour even like him? Sections of the party certainly did not.

 

The trouble is that there are no "big beasts" in the political jungle nowadays. They are all nonentities whose backgrounds are increasingly from the legal profession or as college/university lecturers. As such, they know little of real life, having spent their formative years in their ivory towers.

[Wes Tender]

I've never seen a UKIP policy which is based on any logic. Why don't you name a UKIP policy that does makes logical sense? one that's solving an actual problem using actual sense.

 

Anything I've heard them say is reactionary stuff related to exaggerated issues. Their strongest argument is that the EU budget is too big. But to be honest the UK government is perfectly capable of ****ing away taxpayer's money anyway, whether it's done in London or Brussels makes no difference to me.

 

Why issues like immigration are high up on anyone's agenda is beyond me. I couldn't care less where my neighbours, friends or colleagues were born. I'd much rather see a government tackle housing, the environment, nhs & healthcare and most importantly to improve the standard of living (for everyone).

 

As always in politics too much emphasis is on money and the economy. This shouldn't be the leading issue, it should be focused on improving the quality of life for the population and financial security should be just one of the key components of this.

 

Just because the real world isn't an ideal world that doesn't mean that we can't make it as close to an ideal world as possible.

 

I asked you to name those UKIP policies which you don't think make as much sense as the Green Party's policies that Batman made up, but I see that you don't intend to answer that, preferring to turn it back on me.

 

But I'm not afraid to answer your question.

 

A UKIP policy that makes sense and actually solves an actual problem? Immigration. The actual problem is that an unlimited number of people are allowed to migrate here solely based on their membership of the EU. You say that you would prefer to see a government tackling housing, the environment, NHS and healthcare and to improve the standard of living for everyone. Well, it seems to have escaped your notice that unlimited and unregulated immigration has an affect on pretty well all of those things that you mention. We are too crowded as an Island and massive strains are placed on housing, the NHS and the jobs market because we must allow immigration from any member EU state. The sensible position were we to have the power to implement it, would be regulated immigration based on our needs for people with qualifications in certain areas where there are skill shortages, a system such as Australia has.

 

You say that UKIP's main thrust is towards the EU Budget being too big and in a throw away line you conclude that were it to be reduced, our government is perfectly capable of throwing taxpayers money away themselves. This ignores the fact that the money would be better thrown away by our elected government rather than by unelected faceless bureacrats for two simple reasons. Firstly, we would have a say where or on what that taxpayers' money was spent. Secondly, if it was felt that the government had wasted that money, they would be accountable at the ballot box in the next election.

 

Also, rather naively you claim that too much influence is placed on money and the economy instead of improving the quality of life, whereas a strong economy with full employment which in return will give financial security, is the best way to improve the quality of life of the population.

 

Regarding what constitutes an ideal world, well, that varies depending on one's political perspective. As you've dodged the UKIP question, perhaps you'll offer your opinion of what for you constitutes an ideal world instead.

[Jonnyboy]

Is it not true that you could fit every human on the planet onto the Isle of Wight?

[Whitey Grandad]

Is it not true that you could fit every human on the planet onto the Isle of Wight?

 

Not any more, I believe.

[Whitey Grandad]

Why issues like immigration are high up on anyone's agenda is beyond me. I couldn't care less where my neighbours, friends or colleagues were born. I'd much rather see a government tackle housing, the environment, nhs & healthcare and most importantly to improve the standard of living (for everyone).an't make it as close to an ideal world as possible.

 

I think you'll find that these issues are directly inter-related.

[CB Saint]

Not any more, I believe.

 

Coastal erosion is a b1tch

[Orange]

I've never seen a UKIP policy which is based on any logic. Why don't you name a UKIP policy that does makes logical sense? one that's solving an actual problem using actual sense.

 

Anything I've heard them say is reactionary stuff related to exaggerated issues. Their strongest argument is that the EU budget is too big. But to be honest the UK government is perfectly capable of ****ing away taxpayer's money anyway, whether it's done in London or Brussels makes no difference to me.

 

Why issues like immigration are high up on anyone's agenda is beyond me. I couldn't care less where my neighbours, friends or colleagues were born. I'd much rather see a government tackle housing, the environment, nhs & healthcare and most importantly to improve the standard of living (for everyone).

 

As always in politics too much emphasis is on money and the economy. This shouldn't be the leading issue, it should be focused on improving the quality of life for the population and financial security should be just one of the key components of this.

 

Just because the real world isn't an ideal world that doesn't mean that we can't make it as close to an ideal world as possible.

 

That's your opinion fair enough, but belief it or not a significant amount of people don't want to feel a minority in their own country, and have felt the impacts of uncontrolled immigration on their standard of living. Interesting that people like you still trot out the 'exaggerated' line. They said that when the doors were opened to Poland etc saying UKIP and others were exaggerating the numbers, they said that in January when the doors were opened to Bulgaria/Romania- both times the nasty 'scaremongering right wing' have been proven right.

 

You say UKIP policies don't make logical sense, but can you tell me what policies contradict each other? Like for example, the Greens (judging by their name), wanting to preserve our environment and countryside, whilst wanting to open the doors to the whole of the world, and having to inevitably then concrete over swathes of our countryside to do so. Contradictions like that?

 

At least we would be able to elect through the democratic process what representatives spunk taxpayers money on, and it wouldn't be left to a detached commission of unelected bureaucrats heavily influenced by lobbying and self- interest. I still find it funny how people got so upset over an MP buying a duck house with tax payers money, yet today for the same as the last 19 years the accounts of the EU were failed to be given a clean bill of health because so much money was unaccounted for. Waste within the EU is on another level.

[Orange]

I asked you to name those UKIP policies which you don't think make as much sense as the Green Party's policies that Batman made up, but I see that you don't intend to answer that, preferring to turn it back on me.

 

But I'm not afraid to answer your question.

 

A UKIP policy that makes sense and actually solves an actual problem? Immigration. The actual problem is that an unlimited number of people are allowed to migrate here solely based on their membership of the EU. You say that you would prefer to see a government tackling housing, the environment, NHS and healthcare and to improve the standard of living for everyone. Well, it seems to have escaped your notice that unlimited and unregulated immigration has an affect on pretty well all of those things that you mention. We are too crowded as an Island and massive strains are placed on housing, the NHS and the jobs market because we must allow immigration from any member EU state. The sensible position were we to have the power to implement it, would be regulated immigration based on our needs for people with qualifications in certain areas where there are skill shortages, a system such as Australia has.

 

You say that UKIP's main thrust is towards the EU Budget being too big and in a throw away line you conclude that were it to be reduced, our government is perfectly capable of throwing taxpayers money away themselves. This ignores the fact that the money would be better thrown away by our elected government rather than by unelected faceless bureacrats for two simple reasons. Firstly, we would have a say where or on what that taxpayers' money was spent. Secondly, if it was felt that the government had wasted that money, they would be accountable at the ballot box in the next election.

 

Also, rather naively you claim that too much influence is placed on money and the economy instead of improving the quality of life, whereas a strong economy with full employment which in return will give financial security, is the best way to improve the quality of life of the population.

 

Regarding what constitutes an ideal world, well, that varies depending on one's political perspective. As you've dodged the UKIP question, perhaps you'll offer your opinion of what for you constitutes an ideal world instead.

 

A world where we are increasingly governed by a detached, centralised, nannying and wasteful superstate in Brussels who's elected parliament has no control over policy making, by the sounds of it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I've never seen a UKIP policy which is based on any logic. Why don't you name a UKIP policy that does makes logical sense? one that's solving an actual problem using actual sense.

 

e.

 

 

Treat all immigrants equally, do not discriminate against African, Indian and Asian people . How is placing restrictions on Indian engineers but not on Romanian labourers logical .

 

Allow selective education . How is allowing any Tom **** or Harry to set up a school and how is allowing religion to play a part in entrance policy but not intelligance logical ?

 

Cut foreign aid . Why is giving aid to India , which has a space programme , whilst our pensioners choose between heating and eating and thousands use food banks logical?

 

Scrap HS2. How is cutting a few minutes off journeys to the midlands , whilst the rest of the system needs investment logical?

[st alex]

I asked you to name those UKIP policies which you don't think make as much sense as the Green Party's policies that Batman made up, but I see that you don't intend to answer that, preferring to turn it back on me.

 

But I'm not afraid to answer your question.

 

A UKIP policy that makes sense and actually solves an actual problem? Immigration. The actual problem is that an unlimited number of people are allowed to migrate here solely based on their membership of the EU. You say that you would prefer to see a government tackling housing, the environment, NHS and healthcare and to improve the standard of living for everyone. Well, it seems to have escaped your notice that unlimited and unregulated immigration has an affect on pretty well all of those things that you mention. We are too crowded as an Island and massive strains are placed on housing, the NHS and the jobs market because we must allow immigration from any member EU state. The sensible position were we to have the power to implement it, would be regulated immigration based on our needs for people with qualifications in certain areas where there are skill shortages, a system such as Australia has.

 

You say that UKIP's main thrust is towards the EU Budget being too big and in a throw away line you conclude that were it to be reduced, our government is perfectly capable of throwing taxpayers money away themselves. This ignores the fact that the money would be better thrown away by our elected government rather than by unelected faceless bureacrats for two simple reasons. Firstly, we would have a say where or on what that taxpayers' money was spent. Secondly, if it was felt that the government had wasted that money, they would be accountable at the ballot box in the next election.

 

Also, rather naively you claim that too much influence is placed on money and the economy instead of improving the quality of life, whereas a strong economy with full employment which in return will give financial security, is the best way to improve the quality of life of the population.

 

Regarding what constitutes an ideal world, well, that varies depending on one's political perspective. As you've dodged the UKIP question, perhaps you'll offer your opinion of what for you constitutes an ideal world instead.

 

Making immigrants scapegoats for everything and then claiming that limiting immigration would solve all those problems is naive in my opinion. Limiting immigration and leaving the EU are the only UKIP mantras I've ever heard. Whether their thinking goes any deeper I don't know.

 

For me immigration is not a problem. It doesn't need solving. There might be few mores Poles and Spaniards here, I don't really care. Reducing immigration does nothing to help the UK meet environmental targets (except that perhaps emissions would drop by the tiniest of margins). It doesn't help the nhs, in fact it's more likely to damage it if it becomes increasingly difficult for foreign workers to come here). Perhaps Australia does have a good model, I don't don't really know, as I've said it's non issue for me as it won't solve much.

 

You say we're too crowded, what's the optimum population size for the UK? At point are we 'full up'? Our population's been increasing for hundreds of years. What country isn't too crowded?

 

The housing market is ****ed. This isn't because of immigrants. It's more likely because not enough houses are being built. Housing stock is treated as investments now instead of as homes. An unregulated housing market based on a mountain of debt, means that generally only large companies can build housing, yet it's in their interests to self regulate how much they build to keep demand high and prices even higher. The Sainsbury's development in Portswood for example achieved planning permission with the promise of dozens of affordable houses, yet they just sit on the land and let it's value increase instead.

 

As I said I think financial security and a strong economy are just part of improving people's quality of life, and I don't think that's naive at all, quite the opposite. I think there's more to life than just money, and that you can't simply buy a good life, there are numerous factors that contribute to ones daily happiness and wellbeing other than their bank balance. And if the country's economy is strong that ought to be reflected in people's happiness.

 

I think in an idealish real world there wouldn't be a hugely disproportionate ever-increasing gap in wealth between the rich and the poor. I think people should be put before profits. I think we should get along with our neighbours and not worry about what accent they might speak in and ostracise them for it. I think we could live in a freer society (freedom of movement, better public transport, freedom to have the choice to take drugs). I think we should have the security to live in homes without being profiteered from. And those that do profiteer should be paying the tax they owe. I think we'd get more time off from work and there'd be leisure centres, playing fields, parks, galleries, museums, pubs (decent pubs mind), cafes, restaurants and other things to do.

[Sour Mash]

Making immigrants scapegoats for everything and then claiming that limiting immigration would solve all those problems is naive in my opinion. Limiting immigration and leaving the EU are the only UKIP mantras I've ever heard. Whether their thinking goes any deeper I don't know.

 

For me immigration is not a problem. It doesn't need solving. There might be few mores Poles and Spaniards here, I don't really care. Reducing immigration does nothing to help the UK meet environmental targets (except that perhaps emissions would drop by the tiniest of margins). It doesn't help the nhs, in fact it's more likely to damage it if it becomes increasingly difficult for foreign workers to come here). Perhaps Australia does have a good model, I don't don't really know, as I've said it's non issue for me as it won't solve much.

 

You say we're too crowded, what's the optimum population size for the UK? At point are we 'full up'? Our population's been increasing for hundreds of years. What country isn't too crowded?

 

The housing market is ****ed. This isn't because of immigrants. It's more likely because not enough houses are being built. Housing stock is treated as investments now instead of as homes. An unregulated housing market based on a mountain of debt, means that generally only large companies can build housing, yet it's in their interests to self regulate how much they build to keep demand high and prices even higher. The Sainsbury's development in Portswood for example achieved planning permission with the promise of dozens of affordable houses, yet they just sit on the land and let it's value increase instead.

 

As I said I think financial security and a strong economy are just part of improving people's quality of life, and I don't think that's naive at all, quite the opposite. I think there's more to life than just money, and that you can't simply buy a good life, there are numerous factors that contribute to ones daily happiness and wellbeing other than their bank balance. And if the country's economy is strong that ought to be reflected in people's happiness.

 

I think in an idealish real world there wouldn't be a hugely disproportionate ever-increasing gap in wealth between the rich and the poor. I think people should be put before profits. I think we should get along with our neighbours and not worry about what accent they might speak in and ostracise them for it. I think we could live in a freer society (freedom of movement, better public transport, freedom to have the choice to take drugs). I think we should have the security to live in homes without being profiteered from. And those that do profiteer should be paying the tax they owe. I think we'd get more time off from work and there'd be leisure centres, playing fields, parks, galleries, museums, pubs (decent pubs mind), cafes, restaurants and other things to do.

A genuine question; what would you consider "too much" immigration into the UK?

[Wes Tender]

Making immigrants scapegoats for everything and then claiming that limiting immigration would solve all those problems is naive in my opinion. Limiting immigration and leaving the EU are the only UKIP mantras I've ever heard. Whether their thinking goes any deeper I don't know.

 

For me immigration is not a problem. It doesn't need solving. There might be few mores Poles and Spaniards here, I don't really care. Reducing immigration does nothing to help the UK meet environmental targets (except that perhaps emissions would drop by the tiniest of margins). It doesn't help the nhs, in fact it's more likely to damage it if it becomes increasingly difficult for foreign workers to come here). Perhaps Australia does have a good model, I don't don't really know, as I've said it's non issue for me as it won't solve much.

 

You say we're too crowded, what's the optimum population size for the UK? At point are we 'full up'? Our population's been increasing for hundreds of years. What country isn't too crowded?

 

The housing market is ****ed. This isn't because of immigrants. It's more likely because not enough houses are being built. Housing stock is treated as investments now instead of as homes. An unregulated housing market based on a mountain of debt, means that generally only large companies can build housing, yet it's in their interests to self regulate how much they build to keep demand high and prices even higher. The Sainsbury's development in Portswood for example achieved planning permission with the promise of dozens of affordable houses, yet they just sit on the land and let it's value increase instead.

 

As I said I think financial security and a strong economy are just part of improving people's quality of life, and I don't think that's naive at all, quite the opposite. I think there's more to life than just money, and that you can't simply buy a good life, there are numerous factors that contribute to ones daily happiness and wellbeing other than their bank balance. And if the country's economy is strong that ought to be reflected in people's happiness.

 

I think in an idealish real world there wouldn't be a hugely disproportionate ever-increasing gap in wealth between the rich and the poor. I think people should be put before profits. I think we should get along with our neighbours and not worry about what accent they might speak in and ostracise them for it. I think we could live in a freer society (freedom of movement, better public transport, freedom to have the choice to take drugs). I think we should have the security to live in homes without being profiteered from. And those that do profiteer should be paying the tax they owe. I think we'd get more time off from work and there'd be leisure centres, playing fields, parks, galleries, museums, pubs (decent pubs mind), cafes, restaurants and other things to do.

 

As before, your opinions are riddled with holes and contradictions and it becomes clear that your thought processes identify you as a Green politically, with all the attendant airy-fairy wooly thinking that entails.

 

A couple of others have echoed points I already made, that mass unregulated immigration directly affects housing, the NHS, education and employment in particular. You say that the housing market isn't affected by mass immigration, but where are all of them to live? You say that they have no environmental affect, but what about the extra housing needing to be built on green field sites to house everybody? The NHS would be damaged if it is increasingly difficult for foreign workers to come here? Why do you think that I proposed that people should be allowed to emigrate here if needed to fill particular skill sets, like doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, etc? I think that the Australian model works very well, as they have control over it.

 

Optimum size of population for the UK? What do you think? When every square yard of it is concreted over? Which countries are not overcrowded? Canada, Australia, New Zealand, much of South America, etc.

 

The wealth gap is likely to increase because of this mass unregulated influx of immigrants, isn't it? After all, most come here as economic migrants so that is another hole in your arguments.

 

As for the rest of your final paragraph, I was waiting for you to quote John Lennon's "Imagine" as your simplistic panacea for all the nation's problems. People should be free to take drugs? What type are you taking?

[buctootim]

As before, your opinions are riddled with holes and contradictions and it becomes clear that your thought processes identify you as a Green politically, with all the attendant airy-fairy wooly thinking that entails.

 

 

Not like UKIP eh?

[ecuk268]

Treat all immigrants equally, do not discriminate against African, Indian and Asian people . How is placing restrictions on Indian engineers but not on Romanian labourers logical .

 

UKIP announced this morning that, in the unlikely event of them running the country, they would remove racial discrimination laws regarding employment, so that you could be refused a job on racial grounds.

 

Back to the 1950's eh?

[CB Saint]

UKIP announced this morning that, in the unlikely event of them running the country, they would remove racial discrimination laws regarding employment, so that you could be refused a job on racial grounds.

 

Back to the 1950's eh?

 

Reading about this he is referring to nationality not race - ie British jobs for British people (irrespective of colour)

 

All the major parties have got their big "you're racist" placards out and fanning the flames in the media - they are really worried about UKIP

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

UKIP announced this morning that, in the unlikely event of them running the country, they would remove racial discrimination laws regarding employment, so that you could be refused a job on racial grounds.

 

Back to the 1950's eh?

[ecuk268]

Reading about this he is referring to nationality not race - ie British jobs for British people (irrespective of colour)

 

All the major parties have got their big "you're racist" placards out and fanning the flames in the media - they are really worried about UKIP

 

"The Channel 4 programme makers have said that they have not misrepresented Mr Farage's views.

 

"He was asked a direct question on whether there would be a law against discrimination on the grounds of race or colour and he replied no," he said."

 

I would have thought that most employers want the best person for the job regardless of where they come from.

Edited 12 March, 2015 by ecuk268

[buctootim]

I would have thought that most employers want the best person for the job regardless of where they come from.

 

Depends on the job. When was the last time, for example, you went to the reception of a major company and it wasn't staffed by attractive young women. Its not just about who can do the job best, its also about what your customers think of your staff.

[aintforever]

Depends on the job. When was the last time, for example, you went to the reception of a major company and it wasn't staffed by attractive young women. Its not just about who can do the job best, its also about what your customers think of your staff.

 

But the customer's perception of your company is a big part of the receptionist's job.

[SuperMikey]

I will always maintain that the best person for the job is the best person for the job, irregardless of nationality, race etc. We live in a multicultural nation in a global economy, and that won't change. Putting into effect some kind of positive discrimimation rule to put British workers to the front of the queue is just a placation and something that businesses won't settle for.

 

If Farage and UKIP want to stop British workers being undercut, they need to look at the employers that are doing it by hiring foreign workers on obscenely low wages and making them work ridiculous hours that British workers can't compete with. It's not the fault of the person applying for the job that they're willing to work longer for less, there should be adequate regulations in place to stop that even being an option for the employer in question, which should put applicants on a level playing field.

[Wes Tender]

Nigel Farage has responded to reports that he had called for racial discrimination laws on employment to be removed if UKIP were elected.

 

Mr Farage told the BBC his remarks, recorded last autumn, had been "wilfully misinterpreted", saying he was talking about nationality not race.

 

The programme is to go out next week, so we can make up our own minds about whether his comments have been twisted or taken out of context. In his defence he quotes Gordon Brown calling for British jobs for British workers, and that he was calling for that too. I don't recall Labour getting in a tizzy about that at the time.

 

And as this is Channel Four, it isn't as if they don't have previous form in making up stuff about UKIP or Farage. Their petty little drama about fictional events following a UKIP victory in the General Election hardly identifies them as a source of honesty, impartiality or integrity in their reporting.

 

Personally I don't know what the fuss is all about, as it is difficult to prove discrimination in these sorts of cases anyway, as an employer or landlord can choose whoever they like as an employee or tenant unless they are a big organisation, when they might be affected by laws of positive discrimination which impose quotas on them.

[ecuk268]

Personally I don't know what the fuss is all about, as it is difficult to prove discrimination in these sorts of cases anyway, as an employer or landlord can choose whoever they like as an employee or tenant unless they are a big organisation, when they might be affected by laws of positive discrimination which impose quotas on them.

 

What laws are those?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Nigel Farage has responded to reports that he had called for racial discrimination laws on employment to be removed if UKIP were elected.

 

Mr Farage told the BBC his remarks, recorded last autumn, had been "wilfully misinterpreted", saying he was talking about nationality not race.

 

The programme is to go out next week, so we can make up our own minds about whether his comments have been twisted or taken out of context. In his defence he quotes Gordon Brown calling for British jobs for British workers, and that he was calling for that too. I don't recall Labour getting in a tizzy about that at the time.

 

And as this is Channel Four, it isn't as if they don't have previous form in making up stuff about UKIP or Farage. Their petty little drama about fictional events following a UKIP victory in the General Election hardly identifies them as a source of honesty, impartiality or integrity in their reporting.

 

Personally I don't know what the fuss is all about, as it is difficult to prove discrimination in these sorts of cases anyway, as an employer or landlord can choose whoever they like as an employee or tenant unless they are a big organisation, when they might be affected by laws of positive discrimination which impose quotas on them.

 

 

>Identifies it as a drama

>Upset it isn't honest, impartial reporting

 

[Wes Tender]

What laws are those?

 

You're quite right that there are no laws currently that could enforce positive discrimination, what I meant was policies of positive action.

[Wes Tender]

 

>Identifies it as a drama

>Upset it isn't honest, impartial reporting

 

 

So? I also identified it as fictional. The point remains that if they are capable of producing such biased propaganda in a drama, it calls into question their integrity or their ability to produce impartial, honest reporting about them. It's just the same as expecting the Guardian of a left-wing bias, or the Telegraph of a right wing-bias on the basis of what their usual slant is on something. That drama on UKIP clearly identified Channel 4's position on them, so pardon me if I expect them to try and portray UKIP in as poor a light as possible from now on.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Reading about this he is referring to nationality not race - ie British jobs for British people (irrespective of colour)

 

All the major parties have got their big "you're racist" placards out and fanning the flames in the media - they are really worried about UKIP

 

The establishment already discriminate against people based on their nationality.

 

I interview people for 10-15 jobs a year, minimum wage, and fixed term mainly. The best candidates are generally Eastern European . I have to give them the job as I would be breaking the law not to. If I decided I wanted to take a local person off the dole and give him a chance even though a Romanian had better credentials I'd be breaking the law. All Nigel is proposing is that this part of the law be changed. This policy was endorsed by the previous prime minister who advocated British jobs for British workers.

[ecuk268]

So? I also identified it as fictional. The point remains that if they are capable of producing such biased propaganda in a drama, it calls into question their integrity or their ability to produce impartial, honest reporting about them. It's just the same as expecting the Guardian of a left-wing bias, or the Telegraph of a right wing-bias on the basis of what their usual slant is on something. That drama on UKIP clearly identified Channel 4's position on them, so pardon me if I expect them to try and portray UKIP in as poor a light as possible from now on.

 

So if they broadcast "The Merchant of Venice", would you accuse them of anti_semitism?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

So? I also identified it as fictional. The point remains that if they are capable of producing such biased propaganda in a drama, it calls into question their integrity or their ability to produce impartial, honest reporting about them. It's just the same as expecting the Guardian of a left-wing bias, or the Telegraph of a right wing-bias on the basis of what their usual slant is on something. That drama on UKIP clearly identified Channel 4's position on them, so pardon me if I expect them to try and portray UKIP in as poor a light as possible from now on.

 

Yes, you correctly identified a drama was fictional. That does not therefore mean all reporting on the same channel will also be made up.

 

The drama was most likely made by a production company, entirely separate from the news team.

 

Shall we ensure we ban all dramas so as to ensure any 'bias' of the creators of such shows do not offend anyone that aligns with the protagonist of said dramas? Who in this case, happened to ardently defend the principle of Free Speech (i.e. a very crappy magazine that was frequently racist, sexist, homophobic and generally nasty to every religion going).

 

Or just have separate news channels, where nothing else is allowed to be shown? Though, there are inherently biased news channels also. Or you could just let go of the show that's got you so upset in the first place.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Nigel asks a good question in The Independent today. Why when he says "British" workers do the establishment take that to mean "white" , is this not an indicator of their own institutional racism?

 

 

 

Good common sense about it from a fellow Saints supporter.

 

 

 

 

[st alex]

As before, your opinions are riddled with holes and contradictions and it becomes clear that your thought processes identify you as a Green politically, with all the attendant airy-fairy wooly thinking that entails.

 

A couple of others have echoed points I already made, that mass unregulated immigration directly affects housing, the NHS, education and employment in particular. You say that the housing market isn't affected by mass immigration, but where are all of them to live? You say that they have no environmental affect, but what about the extra housing needing to be built on green field sites to house everybody? The NHS would be damaged if it is increasingly difficult for foreign workers to come here? Why do you think that I proposed that people should be allowed to emigrate here if needed to fill particular skill sets, like doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, etc? I think that the Australian model works very well, as they have control over it.

 

Optimum size of population for the UK? What do you think? When every square yard of it is concreted over? Which countries are not overcrowded? Canada, Australia, New Zealand, much of South America, etc.

 

The wealth gap is likely to increase because of this mass unregulated influx of immigrants, isn't it? After all, most come here as economic migrants so that is another hole in your arguments.

 

As for the rest of your final paragraph, I was waiting for you to quote John Lennon's "Imagine" as your simplistic panacea for all the nation's problems. People should be free to take drugs? What type are you taking?

 

Why shouldn't people be free to take drugs if they'd like to? My only choice of drug is alcohol but I'm not using it at the moment. I might have a moderate amount at the weekend. You probably assume that everybody who takes drugs is likely to keel over and die immediately and that drugs being illegal as they current are stops people from taking them? And that the black market created by their illegality hasn't led to thousands of deaths in an illegal drugs trade. I imagine most deaths from drug consumption comes from taking impure drugs or from overdosing, yet if drugs were manufactured and distributed legally then they'd be cut straight and come with dosage instructions. It's their illegality that's the problem. Besides if the country's finance are such a priority for you, there's a whole industry there avoiding tax.

 

Capitalism works on supply and demand. Because of longer life expectancy and high birth rates our population is on the increase whether we have inward migration or not. Various studies have proved that immigration contributes far more to the economy than it takes out. In which case I can see heavy flaws in your single argument. As that would suggest that services aren't being swamped by immigrants as they're paying their way. And for all the wealth they generate I think they also enrich our society culturally.

 

You're using immigrants as scapegoats just as generations have done for hundreds of years. As for Sour Mash's question - I don't know. I think currently levels seem fine, we could take a few more, we could take a few less. In the grand scheme of things I don't see it making very much difference. I'm not an expert in immigration policy and I won't pretend to be, as I've said I don't see it to be a problem.

 

Again you're using usual UKIP's sensational rhetoric 'every square yard' isn't going to 'get concreted over' is it? We're a million years from that happening. Ironic that you keep citing Australia as the country to follow immigration policy. Australia is over-run with immigrants, it's run by them, so much so that the native population are heavily marginalised socially and economically. So what's the optimum size of the UK? because as ever it's population is growing just like in almost every country in the world. You'll need to get rid of much more than just immigrants if you want a population size comparable to Australia, New Zealand or Canada.

 

The wealth gap has nothing to do with immigration. Do you seriously believe that heavily reducing inward migration will mean that more houses get built (good luck doing that without a unskilled migrant workforce), that the NHS will stop being mismanaged and underfunded (hospitals aren't full of immigrants - except for the doctors, nurses, cleaners and people that work there - they're full of old people), that bankers will continue to get huge untaxed bonuses, that education will somehow improve, that energy production will become greener, that train fares will become cheaper, that roads won't be choked with parents on school runs and that the UK will be able to find enough willing workers to do menial jobs.

 

You've dodged the question on what your ideal world would be, yet you're happy to criticise mine.

[solentstars]

Why shouldn't people be free to take drugs if they'd like to? My only choice of drug is alcohol but I'm not using it at the moment. I might have a moderate amount at the weekend. You probably assume that everybody who takes drugs is likely to keel over and die immediately and that drugs being illegal as they current are stops people from taking them? And that the black market created by their illegality hasn't led to thousands of deaths in an illegal drugs trade. I imagine most deaths from drug consumption comes from taking impure drugs or from overdosing, yet if drugs were manufactured and distributed legally then they'd be cut straight and come with dosage instructions. It's their illegality that's the problem. Besides if the country's finance are such a priority for you, there's a whole industry there avoiding tax.

 

Capitalism works on supply and demand. Because of longer life expectancy and high birth rates our population is on the increase whether we have inward migration or not. Various studies have proved that immigration contributes far more to the economy than it takes out. In which case I can see heavy flaws in your single argument. As that would suggest that services aren't being swamped by immigrants as they're paying their way. And for all the wealth they generate I think they also enrich our society culturally.

 

You're using immigrants as scapegoats just as generations have done for hundreds of years. As for Sour Mash's question - I don't know. I think currently levels seem fine, we could take a few more, we could take a few less. In the grand scheme of things I don't see it making very much difference. I'm not an expert in immigration policy and I won't pretend to be, as I've said I don't see it to be a problem.

 

Again you're using usual UKIP's sensational rhetoric 'every square yard' isn't going to 'get concreted over' is it? We're a million years from that happening. Ironic that you keep citing Australia as the country to follow immigration policy. Australia is over-run with immigrants, it's run by them, so much so that the native population are heavily marginalised socially and economically. So what's the optimum size of the UK? because as ever it's population is growing just like in almost every country in the world. You'll need to get rid of much more than just immigrants if you want a population size comparable to Australia, New Zealand or Canada.

 

The wealth gap has nothing to do with immigration. Do you seriously believe that heavily reducing inward migration will mean that more houses get built (good luck doing that without a unskilled migrant workforce), that the NHS will stop being mismanaged and underfunded (hospitals aren't full of immigrants - except for the doctors, nurses, cleaners and people that work there - they're full of old people), that bankers will continue to get huge untaxed bonuses, that education will somehow improve, that energy production will become greener, that train fares will become cheaper, that roads won't be choked with parents on school runs and that the UK will be able to find enough willing workers to do menial jobs.

 

You've dodged the question on what your ideal world would be, yet you're happy to critic1950sise mine.

good post and a realistic view of the world,be glad when the election is over and ukip and its angry brigade ofold reactionary haters and dreamers will wake up to the fact of a return to past is not gone to happen.

[Wes Tender]

Why shouldn't people be free to take drugs if they'd like to? My only choice of drug is alcohol but I'm not using it at the moment. I might have a moderate amount at the weekend. You probably assume that everybody who takes drugs is likely to keel over and die immediately and that drugs being illegal as they current are stops people from taking them? And that the black market created by their illegality hasn't led to thousands of deaths in an illegal drugs trade. I imagine most deaths from drug consumption comes from taking impure drugs or from overdosing, yet if drugs were manufactured and distributed legally then they'd be cut straight and come with dosage instructions. It's their illegality that's the problem. Besides if the country's finance are such a priority for you, there's a whole industry there avoiding tax.

 

Why shouldn't people take drugs? Well, many are addictive and dangerous. You didn't stipulate any distinction between the hard drugs or softer ones. I don't consider alcohol as a drug as such and certainly your moderate intake of alcohol at the weekend isn't going to label you as a drug-taker. So onto the legalisation proposal. All drugs, or just what you might call "recreational drugs"? And naive to think that if they were legalised there would be no posibility of counterfeit products being available, much as fake cigarettes and booze are now.

 

 

Capitalism works on supply and demand. Because of longer life expectancy and high birth rates our population is on the increase whether we have inward migration or not. Various studies have proved that immigration contributes far more to the economy than it takes out. In which case I can see heavy flaws in your single argument. As that would suggest that services aren't being swamped by immigrants as they're paying their way. And for all the wealth they generate I think they also enrich our society culturally.

Some immigrants work hard and pay taxes. Many others don't. But nevertheless, it seems that you cannot see that additional numbers of people in the country require more housing, more expenditure on the NHS, more school places, etc. Of course our indigenous population is growing as people live longer, but mass influxes of people increase that strain on resources beyond what it would have been, doesn't it?

 

You're using immigrants as scapegoats just as generations have done for hundreds of years. As for Sour Mash's question - I don't know. I think currently levels seem fine, we could take a few more, we could take a few less. In the grand scheme of things I don't see it making very much difference. I'm not an expert in immigration policy and I won't pretend to be, as I've said I don't see it to be a problem.

 

Again you're using usual UKIP's sensational rhetoric 'every square yard' isn't going to 'get concreted over' is it? We're a million years from that happening. Ironic that you keep citing Australia as the country to follow immigration policy. Australia is over-run with immigrants, it's run by them, so much so that the native population are heavily marginalised socially and economically. So what's the optimum size of the UK? because as ever it's population is growing just like in almost every country in the world. You'll need to get rid of much more than just immigrants if you want a population size comparable to Australia, New Zealand or Canada.

 

Of course, the indigenous population of Australia is the Aborigines and they have not fared any better than the native Americans when it came to mass immigration into their countries. But naturally I am talking about the country as it is now. I have a sister in Brisbane, by the way and friends in Perth. Certainly the major cities have communities of Greeks, Italians, Chinese, Koreans and many others as well as the majority British based communities that were the major European settlers. But even though they impose restrictions on who emigrates there, they have plenty of room to expand and grow, as the population densities are low. Ours is not. Where did I say that I wanted a population size comparable to Australia, New Zealand or Canada. I merely used them as examples of Countries where there was not heavy over-population, or where they regulated immigration.

 

The wealth gap has nothing to do with immigration. Do you seriously believe that heavily reducing inward migration will mean that more houses get built (good luck doing that without a unskilled migrant workforce), that the NHS will stop being mismanaged and underfunded (hospitals aren't full of immigrants - except for the doctors, nurses, cleaners and people that work there - they're full of old people), that bankers will continue to get huge untaxed bonuses, that education will somehow improve, that energy production will become greener, that train fares will become cheaper, that roads won't be choked with parents on school runs and that the UK will be able to find enough willing workers to do menial jobs.

 

Of course the wealth gap is connected to immigration. I'm amazed that you cannot see that if there is a massive influx of economic refugees, that the wealth gap would widen.As for the rest of that paragraph, I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.It doesn't have much connection to you answering any points that I have made

You've dodged the question on what your ideal world would be, yet you're happy to criticise mine.

 

You never asked me what constituted an ideal World in my opinion. There are so many facets which go towards making an ideal world and everybody will have a different view of what that means to them and which facets of it are priorities. But since you've asked now, the best way to illustrate my preferences would be to name a country that encompasses many of the aspects that I consider to be important in that respect. For me, that country would be New Zealand.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'd go with New Zealand too. A bit like England from the 1950s

[Jonnyboy]

The Greens are very popular in New Zealand.

[Orange]

Making immigrants scapegoats for everything and then claiming that limiting immigration would solve all those problems is naive in my opinion. Limiting immigration and leaving the EU are the only UKIP mantras I've ever heard. Whether their thinking goes any deeper I don't know.

 

For me immigration is not a problem. It doesn't need solving. There might be few mores Poles and Spaniards here, I don't really care. Reducing immigration does nothing to help the UK meet environmental targets (except that perhaps emissions would drop by the tiniest of margins). It doesn't help the nhs, in fact it's more likely to damage it if it becomes increasingly difficult for foreign workers to come here). Perhaps Australia does have a good model, I don't don't really know, as I've said it's non issue for me as it won't solve much.

 

You say we're too crowded, what's the optimum population size for the UK? At point are we 'full up'? Our population's been increasing for hundreds of years. What country isn't too crowded?

 

The housing market is ****ed. This isn't because of immigrants. It's more likely because not enough houses are being built. Housing stock is treated as investments now instead of as homes. An unregulated housing market based on a mountain of debt, means that generally only large companies can build housing, yet it's in their interests to self regulate how much they build to keep demand high and prices even higher. The Sainsbury's development in Portswood for example achieved planning permission with the promise of dozens of affordable houses, yet they just sit on the land and let it's value increase instead.

 

As I said I think financial security and a strong economy are just part of improving people's quality of life, and I don't think that's naive at all, quite the opposite. I think there's more to life than just money, and that you can't simply buy a good life, there are numerous factors that contribute to ones daily happiness and wellbeing other than their bank balance. And if the country's economy is strong that ought to be reflected in people's happiness.

 

I think in an idealish real world there wouldn't be a hugely disproportionate ever-increasing gap in wealth between the rich and the poor. I think people should be put before profits. I think we should get along with our neighbours and not worry about what accent they might speak in and ostracise them for it. I think we could live in a freer society (freedom of movement, better public transport, freedom to have the choice to take drugs). I think we should have the security to live in homes without being profiteered from. And those that do profiteer should be paying the tax they owe. I think we'd get more time off from work and there'd be leisure centres, playing fields, parks, galleries, museums, pubs (decent pubs mind), cafes, restaurants and other things to do.

 

So in the last decade adding over 4 million to the population (and mainly adult population) has not had an affect on the housing market? And you say that UKIP make no logical sense.

 

Why do you want to pack as many people into this small island as possible, what good will that do to the standard of living of Brits? Where i live there's constant new housing developments. More congestion, more soulless lego land urban sprawl and less countryside- how desirable. By asking what countries aren't crowded, you seem to fail to grasp the basic fact that England is an incredibly small land mass compared to France, Spain, Germany etc.

 

The reason why, as you put it, there is 'sensational rhetoric' by us 'reactionaries' is because once you concrete over more and more of this country and pack us in like battery hens, there is no turning the clock back.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Charlie Kennedy has spent too much time in the green room prior to his QT appearance . #bladdered

[Lord Duckhunter]

God , Kennedy was cringeworthy . It was heart in mouth time every question he answered . Forgot the questions , slurred his words and looked like he's been on a all day session . He's so polluted he may even try and pull Bennett after the show . Seriously , the man was clearly "ill" and the BBC and Lib/dumbs should have binned him. Surely they have a duty of care .