General Election 2015

[hypochondriac]

Because some people are so blinkered, that anything but the tories is acceptable

 

It does seem that people let their bias get in the way and cannot think clearly. I would rather a labour majority than a deal with the devil. Would be interesting to know how many would prefer a labour snp part than a Tory majority. Not many I suspect. Maybe it's because I don't hate either party unlike some on here who seem to have a total hatred of the Tories.

Edited 20 April, 2015 by hypochondriac

[Johnny Bognor]

I don't think we will come close to paying it off regardless of who is in government. Even by those rather optimistic guesses the debt will be knocking on to £2trillion before we even start paying it back. Any sort of sustained growth means an interest rate rise which makes paying it back even harder. The whole system is f*cked anyway, we are just treading water by printing **** loads of new money.

 

Regardless of that I just think we can deal with debt by making the richer people pay more. I'm relatively well off and all 'austerity' has meant for me is lower mortgage repayments and lower inflation, I haven't been effected in the slightest yet many of our poorest are having really hard time and our services are in a bad state.

 

Unfortunately people nowadays are just naturally greedy, there is more than enough money to go round so that everyone can live a half decent life.

 

I think it will peak at 1.8 trillion, so we'll need substantial surpluses for a very long time.

Maybe then we may be able to clear $40bn a year over the next 20 years, which should get us back below 1 trillion.

Then we can pass this on to our grand children to worry about, over the following 25 years.

**** em, we'll be dead by then.

 

Oh wait a minute... that sounds a bit greedy doesn't it???? A bit me, me, me???? Self interest before the common good???

 

I didn't have you down as a tory aintforever ;-)

Edited 20 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[Hockey_saint]

I think it will peak at 1.8 trillion, so we'll need substantial surpluses for a very long time.

Maybe then we may be able to clear $40bn a year over the next 20 years, which should get us back below 1 trillion.

Then we can pass this on to our grand children to worry about, over the following 25 years.

**** em, we'll be dead by then.

 

Oh wait a minute... that sounds a bit greedy doesn't it???? A bit me, me, me???? Self interest before the common good???

 

I didn't have you down as a tory aintforever ;-)

 

OR we can make money out of thin air like the banks do. This deficit mantra is just politically-motivated scare tactics.

[Johnny Bognor]

OR we can make money out of thin air like the banks do. This deficit mantra is just politically-motivated scare tactics.

 

You can't just make money out of thin air. If it were that simple, surely Gordon Brown would have done it to stay PM?

Printing more money has its consequences. The more you print, the bigger the consequences... and you end up in an even worse situation

 

Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit our debt! (this should be the new socialist mantra)

Edited 20 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[Whitey Grandad]

I don't think we will come close to paying it off regardless of who is in government. Even by those rather optimistic guesses the debt will be knocking on to £2trillion before we even start paying it back. Any sort of sustained growth means an interest rate rise which makes paying it back even harder. The whole system is f*cked anyway, we are just treading water by printing **** loads of new money.

 

Regardless of that I just think we can deal with debt by making the richer people pay more. I'm relatively well off and all 'austerity' has meant for me is lower mortgage repayments and lower inflation, I haven't been effected in the slightest yet many of our poorest are having really hard time and our services are in a bad state.

 

Unfortunately people nowadays are just naturally greedy, there is more than enough money to go round so that everyone can live a half decent life.

 

Dream on. If you took all their money away there still wouldn't be enough to make any difference. Whatever your feelings about some people earning more than others and the gap between rich and poor, making the rich poorer will not make the poor richer. There are just so few of them and so many of us. By all means soak them and the tax avoiders for all you can get but don't for a minute think that it'll make the slightest difference to ordinary people.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

OR we can make money out of thin air like the banks do. This deficit mantra is just politically-motivated scare tactics.

 

It would be utter madness to do that.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Dream on. If you took all their money away there still wouldn't be enough to make any difference. Whatever your feelings about some people earning more than others and the gap between rich and poor, making the rich poorer will not make the poor richer. There are just so few of them and so many of us. By all means soak them and the tax avoiders for all you can get but don't for a minute think that it'll make the slightest difference to ordinary people.

 

It depends what he calls rich, are we talking £100k income of £1m income, and how much is he going to increase their taxes by?

[buctootim]

I think it will peak at 1.8 trillion, so we'll need substantial surpluses for a very long time.

Maybe then we may be able to clear $40bn a year over the next 20 years, which should get us back below 1 trillion.

Then we can pass this on to our grand children to worry about, over the following 25 years.

**** em, we'll be dead by then.

 

Oh wait a minute... that sounds a bit greedy doesn't it???? A bit me, me, me???? Self interest before the common good???

 

I didn't have you down as a tory aintforever ;-)

 

As with almost all past governments we wont pay off any substantial amount. It will simply be allowed to decline as proportion of GDP as the economy grows. If we get 20 years where growth averages 2.5% (Im not claiming it will) then the debt will have halved to around 40% of GDP. Obviously if the global economy stagnates, we're stuffed.

[Johnny Bognor]

There are three ways to deal with the National Debt and the defecit.

 

1) Tax people more, but be careful not to harm the economy

2) Spend less, but be careful not to hurt the people at the bottom

3) Have a balance of 1 and 2, whilst focusing on growing the economy

 

When it comes to "focusing on growing the economy", I have not seen much from any political party.

[shurlock]

It would be utter madness to do that.

 

What do you think authorities around the world have been doing for the past five years - what do you think the Tories much vaunted economic record is in many ways attributable to?

[shurlock]

There are three ways to deal with the National Debt and the defecit.

 

1) Tax people more, but be careful not to harm the economy

2) Spend less, but be careful not to hurt the people at the bottom

3) Have a balance of 1 and 2, whilst focusing on growing the economy

 

When it comes to "focusing on growing the economy", I have not seen much from any political party.

 

Or inflate it away -and a dose of inflation might actually be a good thing in some places at the moment.

Edited 20 April, 2015 by shurlock

[Johnny Bognor]

Or inflate it away -and a dose of inflation might actually be a good thing in some places at the moment.

 

At manageable levels, say less than 5%, it would still take 20+ years with no deficit.

 

But inflation hits the poorest hardest. So inflation or printing more money, when it is suggested by socialists is a bit silly really. They may as well say have deeper cuts!!!

 

The best long term solution is to build an economic boom built on ingenuity and creativity (not consumer debt, like the last boom). A modern day industrial revolution in the digital age.... Unfortunately no political party gives a **** beyond getting elected

[saintfully]

Staggering level of economic illiteracy on display here. What do people think quantitative easing was? Answer - creating money out of thin air with the aim of stimulating growth and subsequent inflation to shrink the debt. I thought the Tories followers were supposed to be economics experts?

[whelk]

Exactly. Those of us who lived through the 50s know austerity when they see it.

 

Take it you are contributing f all now regarding output to the economy and draining my taxes and increasing the overall welfare spend?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

As with almost all past governments we wont pay off any substantial amount. It will simply be allowed to decline as proportion of GDP as the economy grows. If we get 20 years where growth averages 2.5% (Im not claiming it will) then the debt will have halved to around 40% of GDP. Obviously if the global economy stagnates, we're stuffed.

Recessions apparently come in 7-10 year cycles which is pretty worrying, means we'll be due one in 2017/18

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/hamish-mcrae/a-study-of-past-economic-cycles-suggests-that-we-arent-far-away-from-the-next-downturn-9653011.html

[whelk]

Staggering level of economic illiteracy on display here. What do people think quantitative easing was? Answer - creating money out of thin air with the aim of stimulating growth and subsequent inflation to shrink the debt. I thought the Tories followers were supposed to be economics experts?

 

They tend to only understand simple analogies normally involving referring to 'like spending on a credit card'

[Whitey Grandad]

Take it you are contributing f all now regarding output to the economy and draining my taxes and increasing the overall welfare spend?

 

Why do you think that? No welfare goes to me. I have a modest state pension for which I have made a lifetime of contributions and, well that's it. I have paid a lot of tax and I'm still paying now, plus all the VAT, Council Tax, fuel duty... Even my 95 year old mother pays tax on her (very) modest pension.

 

Do I take it then that you won't draw your OAP when you reach that age? Always assuming that you don't die before that like many of my friends and family who never saw any benefit from their contributions.

[saint si]

Staggering level of economic illiteracy on display here. What do people think quantitative easing was? Answer - creating money out of thin air with the aim of stimulating growth and subsequent inflation to shrink the debt. I thought the Tories followers were supposed to be economics experts?

 

Upvote!

 

Not to mention that having some debt is desirable as governments can borrow at relatively low rates and then use that money to invest in infrastructure or stimulate the economy in other ways. Also much of the debt is owed to pension funds and suchlike - so those interest repayments are just going back in to the economy.

[CB Fry]

They tend to only understand simple analogies normally involving referring to 'like spending on a credit card'

Or the benefits of "fixing the roof when the sun shines".

[whelk]

Why do you think that? No welfare goes to me. I have a modest state pension for which I have made a lifetime of contributions and, well that's it. I have paid a lot of tax and I'm still paying now, plus all the VAT, Council Tax, fuel duty... Even my 95 year old mother pays tax on her (very) modest pension.

 

Do I take it then that you won't draw your OAP when you reach that age? Always assuming that you don't die before that like many of my friends and family who never saw any benefit from their contributions.

 

It was tongue in cheek old boy. I don't begrudge anyone having a pension.

When all your Tax Payers Alliance mates love to talk about welfare spend increasing but won't mention that a major contribution to that is oldies living longer.

[saint si]

Why do you think that? No welfare goes to me. I have a modest state pension for which I have made a lifetime of contributions and, well that's it. I have paid a lot of tax and I'm still paying now, plus all the VAT, Council Tax, fuel duty... Even my 95 year old mother pays tax on her (very) modest pension.

 

Do I take it then that you won't draw your OAP when you reach that age? Always assuming that you don't die before that like many of my friends and family who never saw any benefit from their contributions.

 

The state pension *is* the single biggest component of the welfare budget (45% or thereabouts)

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

 

I won't be drawing state pension... mainly because I don't expect there to be one by the time I hit 70-something. Workplace pensions all the way...

 

BTW just to be clear, I'm not remotely saying you don't deserve your pension or anything like that!

[shurlock]

At manageable levels, say less than 5%, it would still take 20+ years with no deficit.

 

But inflation hits the poorest hardest. So inflation or printing more money, when it is suggested by socialists is a bit silly really. They may as well say have deeper cuts!!!

 

The best long term solution is to build an economic boom built on ingenuity and creativity (not consumer debt, like the last boom). A modern day industrial revolution in the digital age.... Unfortunately no political party gives a **** beyond getting elected

 

The distributional consequences of inflation are more complex; but in general, I agree. Another solution which some serious thinkers -not just those on the left- advocated during the crisis and its aftermath was debt relief/forgiveness for the poorest and most leveraged.

 

Of course, that wouldn't fly politically with the moralising majority, even if it's effects are seemingly far more positive than bailouts for bank creditors/shareholders and monetary experiments in QE. See Mian and Sufi's excellent book 'House of Debt'.

Edited 20 April, 2015 by shurlock

[saintfully]

Or the benefits of "fixing the roof when the sun shines".

 

Indeed - much better to borrow when interest rates are low... hence their current rates. Trying to persuade private capital to invest in development and growth. Sadly this opportunity has yet to be taken up properly, either by govt or capital investors. Instead it's gone into 'property' asset bubbles. Doh. The UK economy doesn't work.

[Whitey Grandad]

It was tongue in cheek old boy. I don't begrudge anyone having a pension.

When all your Tax Payers Alliance mates love to talk about welfare spend increasing but won't mention that a major contribution to that is oldies living longer.

 

No problems, all in good spirit.

 

You're right about the problems of people living longer, but I do like to point out that many of my generation never actually get that far. One of the benefits of this brave new world for you youngsters is that you get to live longer. And work longer of course

[Whitey Grandad]

The state pension *is* the single biggest component of the welfare budget (45% or thereabouts)

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

 

I won't be drawing state pension... mainly because I don't expect there to be one by the time I hit 70-something. Workplace pensions all the way...

 

BTW just to be clear, I'm not remotely saying you don't deserve your pension or anything like that!

 

This is (yet) another big bugbear of mine. Westminster has progressively shifted Old Age Pensions from a paid-for return on years of contributions to just another state benefit. There used to be a Department of Work and Pensions but now all government handouts get lumped together, presumably so that they can get attacked as another source of income. This wasn't the deal when I paid NI out of my first pay packet in the 1960s but successive governments of all colours have used contemporary contributions to fund current budgets. Effectively they have raise the pension funds of the people to pay of their pet projects instead is setting it aside for later. Robert Maxwell would have been proud.

[badgerx16]

Unfortunately no political party gives a **** beyond getting elected

 

Amen to that.

[Jonnyboy]

Exactly. Those of us who lived through the 50s know austerity when they see it.

 

Well I lived through the Stone Age so don't lecture me about austerity you spoiled whipper snapper!

[Johnny Bognor]

Staggering level of economic illiteracy on display here. What do people think quantitative easing was? Answer - creating money out of thin air with the aim of stimulating growth and subsequent inflation to shrink the debt. I thought the Tories followers were supposed to be economics experts?

 

I agree. Don't you remember me lecturing Guided Missile (The most successful businessman on the forum) about the elasticity of demand???

 

If you knew your stuff, you would know that QE is decided by the Monetary Policy Commission at the independent Bank of England. It started under Labour and continued under the Tories. But as the BOE is independent, it is not a specific option open to political parties, to simply print more money. Which judging by some of the posters in here, is no bad thing. Granted that the government of the day sets the inflation target amongst other things, but can you imagine a government suggesting that we should have a 5% inflation rate?

 

On another note, despite QE, much of the money was injected into the banking system, who have sat on the money to repair their balance sheets

 

HTH

[shurlock]

I agree. Don't you remember me lecturing Guided Missile (The most successful businessman on the forum) about the elasticity of demand???

 

If you knew your stuff, you would know that QE is decided by the Monetary Policy Commission at the independent Bank of England. It started under Labour and continued under the Tories. But as the BOE is independent, it is not a specific option open to political parties, to simply print more money. Which judging by some of the posters in here, is no bad thing. Granted that the government of the day sets the inflation target amongst other things, but can you imagine a government suggesting that we should have a 5% inflation rate?

 

On another note, despite QE, much of the money was injected into the banking system, who have sat on the money to repair their balance sheets

 

HTH

 

Central banks are independent (though those lines have been crossed in some countries e.g. Japan); but they have also been put in an invidious position, compelled to respond to the crisis because other policy tools have been effectively removed from the table which is a party political decision.

 

The impaired ability of banks to lend may be one reason why QE has not always washed through the system; but as time has passed, a more persuasive reason is that indebted households and to a lesser extent businesses have been deleveraging and have not wanted to borrow. In other words, the phenomenon is more demand than supply driven.

 

As to your suggestion that political parties are not interested in innovation -an industrial revolution for the digital- that's plain lazy. If anything, it's the one area that commands an impressive degree of cross-party support (in terms of means and ends). Plenty is going on behind the scenes - alas the reasons for its limited traction (at least for those who can't be bothered to look) touch on a whole host of bottlenecks and behaviours that are not directly amenable to policy intervention. The parts that can be influenced are partly foreclosed by the kind of moralising about debt (and the public sector) that is implicit in your posts.

 

HTH

Edited 21 April, 2015 by shurlock

[Hockey_saint]

It would be utter madness to do that.

 

Banks do it ALL the time.

[trousers]

OK, hands up. Who gave this chap a copy of the SaintsWeb Forum Thought Police manual?

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9501282/hating-the-daily-mail-is-a-substitute-for-doing-good/

[CB Fry]

http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=830_1429530314

 

Here's a nice one for all of us to apply our entrenched view to.

 

Personally, I think the canvassers handled it badly and should have said "turn the camera off and let's talk". But that said those two aren't Paxman and having a cameraphone does not make your front door Newsnight.

 

So their obvious concern at being filmed was the right reaction and getting away was the right thing. On balance I have more sympathy with the canvassers than a couple of Nathan Barleys waving a iPhone about.

[aintforever]

Dream on. If you took all their money away there still wouldn't be enough to make any difference. Whatever your feelings about some people earning more than others and the gap between rich and poor, making the rich poorer will not make the poor richer. There are just so few of them and so many of us. By all means soak them and the tax avoiders for all you can get but don't for a minute think that it'll make the slightest difference to ordinary people.

 

I disagree, I'm not talking about the super rich just people who are reasonably well off. Like I said, I earn way above the average and 'austerity' hasn't effected me in the slightest, if anything I'm better off because of lower mortgage payments and low inflation.

 

I could easily pay a bit more tax and not even notice let alone have my lifestyle effected. Any home owner in a half decent job has probably been quids in whilst the poorest get clobbered by the government, those on benefits demonised and vital services cut. It makes no sense to lay off social workers and shut libraries and youth clubs when plenty of people are doing OK.

 

There is easily scope for the deficit to be reduced in a fairer way which is why I think Labour is a better option. Unfortunately the greedy and the selfish will probably have their way.

[trousers]

I could easily pay a bit more tax

 

What's stopping you?

 

I could easily pay more tax too, but it would be at the expense of my charity donations.

Edited 21 April, 2015 by trousers

[Whitey Grandad]

I disagree, I'm not talking about the super rich just people who are reasonably well off. Like I said, I earn way above the average and 'austerity' hasn't effected me in the slightest, if anything I'm better off because of lower mortgage payments and low inflation.

 

I could easily pay a bit more tax and not even notice let alone have my lifestyle effected. Any home owner in a half decent job has probably been quids in whilst the poorest get clobbered by the government, those on benefits demonised and vital services cut. It makes no sense to lay off social workers and shut libraries and youth clubs when plenty of people are doing OK.

 

There is easily scope for the deficit to be reduced in a fairer way which is why I think Labour is a better option. Unfortunately the greedy and the selfish will probably have their way.

 

How are the poorest 'clobbered'? They don't pay tax, or very little.

[OldNick]

I notice Ed was going on about the mansion tax this morning. Has anyone asked him how the exchequer knows which houses are in the £2m price bracket?

I assume all houses will have to be valued. The Chartered surveyors will love drawing the money in for that. i expect it will cost as much to find the houses worth than it will draw in.

[Johnny Bognor]

Central banks are independent (though those lines have been crossed in some countries e.g. Japan); but they have also been put in an invidious position, compelled to respond to the crisis because other policy tools have been effectively removed from the table which is a party political decision.

 

Yes, but as you can see, simply printing more money is not an option afforded to any political party, under the current remit of the MPC and BOE

 

The impaired ability of banks to lend may be one reason why QE has not always washed through the system; but as time has passed, a more persuasive reason is that indebted households and to a lesser extent businesses have been deleveraging and have not wanted to borrow. In other words, the phenomenon is more demand than supply driven.

 

No **** shurlock (sorry, wanted to do that for a while). I don't disagree. You can offer to lend as much money as you want, but someone has to borrow it. Business confidence has been fairly low and still is, which affects the appetite for risk. Households need to develerage after a decade of unsustainable consumer borrowing. When talking about national debt, Labour may get some of the blame, but the financial crisis was the major cause. However, the biggest "crime" under New Labour was allowing consumer debt to spiral out of control to unprecedented levels. This happened before the crisis and directly contributed to it. Brown was quite happy with this though, because the debt was fueling the boom of the naughties. The feel good factor of the nation kept him in power. He actively encouraged consumer debt with his declaration of "no more boom and bust". And to think people were trying to hoodwink us into thinking he was the prudent one....

 

 

 

As to your suggestion that political parties are not interested in innovation -an industrial revolution for the digital- that's plain lazy. If anything, it's the one area that commands an impressive degree of cross-party support (in terms of means and ends). Plenty is going on behind the scenes - alas the reasons for its limited traction (at least for those who can't be bothered to look) touch on a whole host of bottlenecks and behaviours that are not directly amenable to policy intervention.

HTH

 

The problem with most policy is that it is for the short term and at best medium term. Most policy is for the now, to win votes. There is no longer term strategy for sustained economic growth from any party. The tories recently made £40m available for businesses to get involved in the "Internet of Things". This is the next phase of digital development. £40m is a nice gesture, but it is completely ****ing in the wind in the scheme of things.

Edited 21 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Think I owe pap an apology, Mr Boyle is starting to grow on me. It's worrying how comedians seem to talk more sense than politicians.

 

Nicola Sturgeon has been called “the most dangerous woman in Britain”, by someone who hasn’t met any other Scottish women.

 

 

Then there’s Ukip, like someone made a heavy-handed version of The Thick of It for ITV. They don’t want Britain to be ruled by foreigners – with the notable exception of the royal family. They want an Australian-style points system for immigration. Who knows what this will look like, but my suspicion is “being white” will be like catching the snitch in Quidditch

 

I personally like this one. The whole "we're not racist, we are just v concerned that Canadians and Australians can't come here (i.e. other white skinned English speaking folk)" or "we just want to implement a system like Australia (seriously, why does Nige love Australia so much. Has he considered emigrating?)" is daft. I'm not exactly sure why it's a good idea to deny you are racist whilst simultaneously saying how you want to be more like a country that has bigger problems with racism than us. Odd.

 

Even our charity is essentially patronising. Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Give him a fishing rod and he can feed himself. Alternatively, don’t poison the fishing waters, abduct his great-grandparents into slavery, then turn up 400 years later on your gap year talking a lot of ****e about fish.

 

Britain is in a similar place with colonialism. We have streets named after slave owners. We profited from a vile crime and feel no shame. We fear the arrival of immigrants that we have drawn here with the wealth we stole from them. For much of the rest of the world we must be the focus of bitter amusement, characters in a satire we don’t understand. It is British people that don’t learn languages, or British history. Britain is the true scrounger, the true criminal.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/20/britain-criminally-stupid-race-immigration?CMP=share_btn_fb

[hypochondriac]

I've noticed with you KRG that you really seem to dislike Britain and British people in general. I'm curious as to why you continue to stick it out.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Nah, not really. Criticising something doesn't mean you hate it Hypo.

 

I just think we are capable of doing better. I also think it's daft to whitewash a lot of the bad things that happened historically and the impact of those things on today.

 

But, it's not all that surprising to basically see a "well if you don't like it why don't you eff off somewhere else then?!" attitude.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Anyone else given any thoughts to emigrating in the past, based on political party in charge?

[Johnny Bognor]

Think I owe pap an apology, Mr Boyle is starting to grow on me. It's worrying how comedians seem to talk more sense than politicians.

 

Hey, if you like people that verbally attack disbaled children or take the **** out of people with down syndrome, I guess that is your perrogative. I personally find people like this vile scum.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Hey, if you like people that verbally attack disbaled children or take the **** out of people with down syndrome, I guess that is your perrogative. I personally find people like this vile scum.

 

This was pretty much my problem with him, as I've said before. I'm not a fan of his comedy, but his columns often raise some good points.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Nah, not really. Criticising something doesn't mean you hate it Hypo.

 

I just think we are capable of doing better. I also think it's daft to whitewash a lot of the bad things that happened historically and the impact of those things on today.

 

But, it's not all that surprising to basically see a "well if you don't like it why don't you eff off somewhere else then?!" attitude.

 

I still feel the people of Rome owe us an apology. The way they treated us for 400+ years. Then we had to put up with those rape and pillaging specialists the Vikings; is no one going to petition the Scandinavians for some form of reparations? and the French they confiscated all our land and handed it out amongst themselves. Unbelievable. And then they made us fight the French for 100 years mind you we had a couple of good away wins. We only really got our act together by the time the Spanish came along.

Edited 21 April, 2015 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I think Frankie Boyle is right, we should see the former colonies right. We could bill the Germans and send them the money.

[Whitey Grandad]

From The Times today:

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Anyone else given any thoughts to emigrating in the past, based on political party in charge?

 

But then I'd be a filthy parasitic immigrant, and everything wrong with my new home country.

 

That's how it works, right?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

But then I'd be a filthy parasitic immigrant, and everything wrong with my new home country.

 

That's how it works, right?

 

Not if you are arriving by a points based system. You will be welcomed because you are filling a shortage

[shurlock]

Edit

[aintforever]

But then I'd be a filthy parasitic immigrant, and everything wrong with my new home country.

 

That's how it works, right?

 

Immigration is the elephant in the room at this election though isn't it?

 

There is only one party (UKIP) willing to tackle the problem, all the other parties don't even want to talk about it. We are having to make cuts to public services and at the same time welcoming in 2-300,000 new people each year who all need to use these services. It's not a hard problem to understand - if there is more people we need more services.

 

Like the housing crisis, it's all about supply and demand - it's a simple equation yet again, only UKIP seem to understand it.

 

Problem is as soon as the issue is raised it is buried under a load of bullish!t accusations of racism.