For quite a while there was a big arb on the UKIP vs LD Match Bet, Ladbrokes were 2/5 UKIP 7/4 Lib Dems while Hills went 8/11 and EVS.. Hills closed it up today. 4/11 & 2/1
Mr. K, the single currency may end up being the economic equivalent of Honorius' killing of Stilicho.
Why do you write such shite ? I know you are anti European, but there is absolutely no reason why the Euro should collapse.
People who predicted the Euro would collapse severely underestimated the economic carnage that the EU would allow the euro to create before they canned it.
The Euro didn't create the carnage; it revealed it.
Nonsense. The Euro allowed risky nations to borrow far, far more than they would otherwise be allowed to borrow by the markets, through a combination of investors knowing Germany would cough up the cash, and inappropriately expansionary monetary policy. Having catalysed the boom, it is now preventing the recovery, with these nations being locked into a regime where they are unable to devalue and unable to stimulate monetarily.
@MichaelPDeacon: Nigel Farage laid down "a challenge" to Ed Miliband today. "Why don't we go to a working men's club in Newcastle, and see who gets on best"
In a very slight way, that reminds me of Ian Smith saying he'd be interested to see who of himself and Robert Mugabe would emerge alive from a walk around a Harare slum.
Mr. K, the single currency may end up being the economic equivalent of Honorius' killing of Stilicho.
Why do you write such shite ? I know you are anti European, but there is absolutely no reason why the Euro should collapse.
People who predicted the Euro would collapse severely underestimated the economic carnage that the EU would allow the euro to create before they canned it.
The Euro didn't create the carnage; it revealed it.
And it exacerbated it. If countries had their own currencies as the UK did they could have coped better with their financial issues
And having dealt with the moronic Fenman, to respond to the thread header.
I would certainly hope that UKIP were not around in 10 years - at least not in anything resembling their current form. If they were then it would mean they had probably failed in their primary purpose of getting us out of the EU. If they had achieved that aim then I would see little purpose in their continued existence unless they had become a truly Libertarian party - something which I feel is unfortunately very unlikely.
I used to think this, but now I feel it's more about will, and momentum, than which institutions we're part of. I would love us to be outside the EU, but we could still fail as a country. Better inside the EU with a Thatcher batting for us than outside it with a third column leadership (obviously the best scenario is outside it with great leadership). A country must be solvent, capable of defending itself, and governed on behalf of the people. This will always be a battle that needs fighting.
Even with a Thatcher, the EU is getting to the point where decisions about our country would be made over our heads.
And having dealt with the moronic Fenman, to respond to the thread header.
I would certainly hope that UKIP were not around in 10 years - at least not in anything resembling their current form. If they were then it would mean they had probably failed in their primary purpose of getting us out of the EU. If they had achieved that aim then I would see little purpose in their continued existence unless they had become a truly Libertarian party - something which I feel is unfortunately very unlikely.
I used to think this, but now I feel it's more about will, and momentum, than which institutions we're part of. I would love us to be outside the EU, but we could still fail as a country. Better inside the EU with a Thatcher batting for us than outside it with a third column leadership (obviously the best scenario is outside it with great leadership). A country must be solvent, capable of defending itself, and governed on behalf of the people. This will always be a battle that needs fighting.
And yet you would have us exist within an institution that would dissolve the national organisations that provide us such security. Its seems a strange way to go about things. To suggest the UK will fail as a country is a vote of no confidence in its people. Frankly its far more likely we select leaders who do not deserve our confidence than suggesting that the British people do not deserve it.
You misunderstand me. I will argue for us to leave the EU every day until it happens. However, I think we under-estimate the capacity of our political class, judiciary and civil service to undermine the interests of the country.
Could drag Britain down with them before the election.
If you’re thinking of unleashing schadenfreude, don’t. Germany is a big export market for Britain, as is the whole of the Eurozone. If they don’t grow, ultimately, large parts of the UK economy does not grow either. And if that happens, under the fiscal rules set by the coalition government, there would have to be more austerity into the future. It's almost like the European Union is a sinking ship and we need to shift our exports to the rest of the world, rather than stay part of a club that forces us to have trade barriers with them.
Paul Mason is a leftie and highlights the danger of another euro recession. Mason's solution is to tackle the banks. What is missing is any sense that the EC needs to remove a mass of rules and regulations to free up private enterprise and cut back Govt taxation.
The EU won't reform. Look at the minuscule progress that has been made on the Common Agricultural Policy over decades. It's bigger than it ever was and thus distorting the market even more, but reformers don't even mention it these days because they know what a waste of time it is. In any sane world, it would be one of the first things on Cameron's repatriation list. Moderate Europhiles going on about major reform being just round the corner is reminiscent of evangelicals talking about Rapture or communists talking about the revolution. It's an imaginary pipe dream needed to justify their point of view.
Mr Begg told the BBC he thought he knew some individuals linked to those holding Mr Henning.
Prime Minister David Cameron urged him to share any information he had. Whitehall officials confirmed the government did not accept Mr Begg's offer of help at first, but did later.
He told the BBC he had helped secure the release of hostages from extremists in Syria in the past.
For a guy who supposedly just ran a book shop, how would he know such people and be able to contact them?
Forget airstrikes, sounds like we we can defeat ISIS by employing the help of Waterstone managers in the fight against the worlds most extreme terrorist organisation.
I'd take what Mr Begg says with a very large pinch of salt........
"UKIP want to prioritise social housing for people whose parents and grandparents were born locally." How very Aryan.
Not sure how that would be controversial. Except in eh far out reaches of PC-land. Better give housing to third world immigrants brought in to shore up the Labour vote then? How is that "fairer"?
The main purpose of social housing is to provide decent housing to people in difficulty. It's reasonable to do it according to the level of difficulty, as currently, rather than on the localness of the applicant's grandfather ("Your granddad was from Bradford and this is Leeds!"). If parties wish to restrict immigration, they should propose to do so directly, not by making up peculiar rules like this.
"UKIP want to prioritise social housing for people whose parents and grandparents were born locally." How very Aryan.
Ever more desperate.
I am absolutely certain that few of Clacton's current social housing applicants grandparent's were born "locally". They all moved there, often from East London!
And, just for the record, if "locally" is Essex, as a long-term Essex resident and passer of the Tebbitt Essex cricket test, none of either my or my wife's grandparents or parents were born in Essex! Same applies to my children!
And having dealt with the moronic Fenman, to respond to the thread header.
I would certainly hope that UKIP were not around in 10 years - at least not in anything resembling their current form. If they were then it would mean they had probably failed in their primary purpose of getting us out of the EU. If they had achieved that aim then I would see little purpose in their continued existence unless they had become a truly Libertarian party - something which I feel is unfortunately very unlikely.
I used to think this, but now I feel it's more about will, and momentum, than which institutions we're part of. I would love us to be outside the EU, but we could still fail as a country. Better inside the EU with a Thatcher batting for us than outside it with a third column leadership (obviously the best scenario is outside it with great leadership). A country must be solvent, capable of defending itself, and governed on behalf of the people. This will always be a battle that needs fighting.
Even with a Thatcher, the EU is getting to the point where decisions about our country would be made over our heads.
You are right, it is, but also its weaknesses are also showing more in my opinion. We simply don't know what we could achieve with the right leader because we haven't had one since Thatcher left office.
On topic, there is a very real risk of the Lib Dems fading away but chances are, they won't. As long as there are enough constituencies where they are strong enough to return MPs, they'll be a voice in the debate - and for the time being, there are.
Politics tends to have a very great deal of institutional inertia and FPTP multiplies that three- or four-fold. For UKIP to have broken through to the extent that they have is a massive achievement but it may still net them next-to-no seats come the GE. The Lib Dems, possibly with half UKIP's vote, could easily take thirty or more. If so, that will keep them their place at the table.
That's not just a metaphor. One thing that keeps the Lib Dems relevant is the fact that, for example, the main news channels covered their conference in detail. The Greens - polling at roughly the same level - got nothing; UKIP received a lot less. The Lib Dems are still treated by the media as a major party while UKIP get much less and the rest practically nothing at all. If they were to perform badly enough next May that placing them alongside Con and Lab (and ahead of UKIP) became unsustainable, that really would be difficult.
It's true that the Liberals have recovered before but things are different now from 1950 or 1990. In the 1950s there really were no other alternatives to Labour or the Tories; the only way to protest against both other parties was to go Liberal (and even then, it took firstly the shambles of the Heath-Wilson years and then the SDP split to recover just a fraction of the damage done since 1931). In 1990, the Lib Dems had a much more formidable local base in enough areas, there were plenty of people who'd already tried third-party politics, the Greens were too other-worldly to capitalise on their electoral good fortune, and there was still no-one else beyond (in England at least). Now there is a plethora of hungry minor parties ready to wait for one of the big boys to slip. They might not have the activist base of the Lib Dems but that's something that might develop with time.
Suppose Labour wins a narrow majority next time, or even ends up in coalition with the Lib Dems. Do we really suppose that UKIP wouldn't try to eat much further into the Labour heartlands, when they've already made a decent start with Labour in opposition? Even if UKIP only end up with, say, three seats in 2015 (and that would still represent a considerable breakthrough), they'd could advance much further come 2020 (or earlier), becoming the third party in the process. It's far from guaranteed but it's also far from impossible.
The Lib Dems' future relies on them being one of the Big Three. Without that, what is their purpose? A federation of local independents simply isn't enough.
And having dealt with the moronic Fenman, to respond to the thread header.
I would certainly hope that UKIP were not around in 10 years - at least not in anything resembling their current form. If they were then it would mean they had probably failed in their primary purpose of getting us out of the EU. If they had achieved that aim then I would see little purpose in their continued existence unless they had become a truly Libertarian party - something which I feel is unfortunately very unlikely.
I used to think this, but now I feel it's more about will, and momentum, than which institutions we're part of. I would love us to be outside the EU, but we could still fail as a country. Better inside the EU with a Thatcher batting for us than outside it with a third column leadership (obviously the best scenario is outside it with great leadership). A country must be solvent, capable of defending itself, and governed on behalf of the people. This will always be a battle that needs fighting.
And yet you would have us exist within an institution that would dissolve the national organisations that provide us such security. Its seems a strange way to go about things. To suggest the UK will fail as a country is a vote of no confidence in its people. Frankly its far more likely we select leaders who do not deserve our confidence than suggesting that the British people do not deserve it.
You misunderstand me. I will argue for us to leave the EU every day until it happens. However, I think we under-estimate the capacity of our political class, judiciary and civil service to undermine the interests of the country.
Throughout history there has been a struggle between those who want a hierarchical society and those who want egalitarian grass-roots democracy. We need a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Getting out the EU is a necessary part of that, but it's not sufficient.
"UKIP want to prioritise social housing for people whose parents and grandparents were born locally." How very Aryan.
Not sure how that would be controversial. Except in eh far out reaches of PC-land. Better give housing to third world immigrants brought in to shore up the Labour vote then? How is that "fairer"?
The main purpose of social housing is to provide decent housing to people in difficulty. It's reasonable to do it according to the level of difficulty, as currently, rather than on the localness of the applicant's grandfather ("Your granddad was from Bradford and this is Leeds!"). If parties wish to restrict immigration, they should propose to do so directly, not by making up peculiar rules like this.
Prescient view on what local is! Leeds? Bradford! Beeston? Or Ilkeston, that really is foreign!!
However, what is your view. What will you tell your prospective constituents. Social housing should go first to the third world family just moved to the UK with 5 children or the young couple whose family has been in Notts for generations, been paying taxes for years....
BTW will you tell your prospective constituents why you think continued mass immigration is good? Or what specific benefits it has brought? Presumably apart from curry houses.
"UKIP want to prioritise social housing for people whose parents and grandparents were born locally." How very Aryan.
Not sure how that would be controversial. Except in eh far out reaches of PC-land. Better give housing to third world immigrants brought in to shore up the Labour vote then? How is that "fairer"?
The main purpose of social housing is to provide decent housing to people in difficulty. It's reasonable to do it according to the level of difficulty, as currently, rather than on the localness of the applicant's grandfather ("Your granddad was from Bradford and this is Leeds!"). If parties wish to restrict immigration, they should propose to do so directly, not by making up peculiar rules like this.
There is a tension between having a welfare system based on contributions - as ours was originally set up to be - and one based solely on need. People feel that, where there is a limited supply of housing, it should be given to those who have contributed to the state's coffers and have been waiting longest. It is seen, perhaps, as a reward for the contributions made by their parents and grandparents. And people get irked when someone arrives from somewhere else and gets ahead of the queue, based on "need", however genuine that need may be. It feels unfair.
You're right that immigration levels should be addressed directly.
But the Labour party (none of the parties really) has not satisfactorily resolved the tension between a welfare state where people pay in and rely on it when they need it and one where its benefits are distributed to people purely based on need, regardless of whether they or their families have contributed anything.
You may think that a needs based welfare system is fair but you need to understand that, from other perspectives - often the perspective of traditional Labour voters - it can look hugely unfair.
And having dealt with the moronic Fenman, to respond to the thread header.
I would certainly hope that UKIP were not around in 10 years - at least not in anything resembling their current form. If they were then it would mean they had probably failed in their primary purpose of getting us out of the EU. If they had achieved that aim then I would see little purpose in their continued existence unless they had become a truly Libertarian party - something which I feel is unfortunately very unlikely.
I used to think this, but now I feel it's more about will, and momentum, than which institutions we're part of. I would love us to be outside the EU, but we could still fail as a country. Better inside the EU with a Thatcher batting for us than outside it with a third column leadership (obviously the best scenario is outside it with great leadership). A country must be solvent, capable of defending itself, and governed on behalf of the people. This will always be a battle that needs fighting.
And yet you would have us exist within an institution that would dissolve the national organisations that provide us such security. Its seems a strange way to go about things. To suggest the UK will fail as a country is a vote of no confidence in its people. Frankly its far more likely we select leaders who do not deserve our confidence than suggesting that the British people do not deserve it.
You misunderstand me. I will argue for us to leave the EU every day until it happens. However, I think we under-estimate the capacity of our political class, judiciary and civil service to undermine the interests of the country.
Throughout history there has been a struggle between those who want a hierarchical society and those who want egalitarian grass-roots democracy. We need a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Getting out the EU is a necessary part of that, but it's not sufficient.
Yes. I am on board with this statement 100%. That struggle will always be with us. And if UKIP are needed to help fight it, let's hope they stick around to do so.
"UKIP want to prioritise social housing for people whose parents and grandparents were born locally." How very Aryan.
Ever more desperate.
I am absolutely certain that few of Clacton's current social housing applicants grandparent's were born "locally". They all moved there, often from East London!
And, just for the record, if "locally" is Essex, as a long-term Essex resident and passer of the Tebbitt Essex cricket test, none of either my or my wife's grandparents or parents were born in Essex! Same applies to my children!
UKIP are afraid to say local=white British in case the usual rent-a-mob shout the r-word.
And having dealt with the moronic Fenman, to respond to the thread header.
I would certainly hope that UKIP were not around in 10 years - at least not in anything resembling their current form. If they were then it would mean they had probably failed in their primary purpose of getting us out of the EU. If they had achieved that aim then I would see little purpose in their continued existence unless they had become a truly Libertarian party - something which I feel is unfortunately very unlikely.
I used to think this, but now I feel it's more about will, and momentum, than which institutions we're part of. I would love us to be outside the EU, but we could still fail as a country. Better inside the EU with a Thatcher batting for us than outside it with a third column leadership (obviously the best scenario is outside it with great leadership). A country must be solvent, capable of defending itself, and governed on behalf of the people. This will always be a battle that needs fighting.
And yet you would have us exist within an institution that would dissolve the national organisations that provide us such security. Its seems a strange way to go about things. To suggest the UK will fail as a country is a vote of no confidence in its people. Frankly its far more likely we select leaders who do not deserve our confidence than suggesting that the British people do not deserve it.
You misunderstand me. I will argue for us to leave the EU every day until it happens. However, I think we under-estimate the capacity of our political class, judiciary and civil service to undermine the interests of the country.
No less so than in its submission to Brussels supremacy which is where we came in.
Little wonder I misunderstood you. What you have written this time is very different to what you wrote originally.
Mr. K, the single currency may end up being the economic equivalent of Honorius' killing of Stilicho.
Why do you write such shite ? I know you are anti European, but there is absolutely no reason why the Euro should collapse.
People who predicted the Euro would collapse severely underestimated the economic carnage that the EU would allow the euro to create before they canned it.
The Euro didn't create the carnage; it revealed it.
Nonsense. The Euro allowed risky nations to borrow far, far more than they would otherwise be allowed to borrow by the markets, through a combination of investors knowing Germany would cough up the cash, and inappropriately expansionary monetary policy. Having catalysed the boom, it is now preventing the recovery, with these nations being locked into a regime where they are unable to devalue and unable to stimulate monetarily.
I'd accept that only so far. There was no guarantee at all that Germany (and other solvent, cautious countries) would underwrite the feckless. The US has a currency union but that doesn't stop the odd municipality from going bankrupt and on very rare occasions, whole states, without a federal underwriting. The EU need have been no different.
As for allowing the PIIGS countries to borrow too much, that was as much the lenders' fault as much as anything. No-one forced them to lend at such low rates.
I agree that the ECB hasn't handled the recovery well but if we think that Greece (say) would have done much better with the Drachma then I'd say we're deluding ourselves. Yes, they could have inflated and devalued but that would have pushed up import prices, foreign currency debt repayments and interest rates and been no bed of roses either.
The Liberal Democrats might disappear, but Liberalism has been written off before and remained.
UKIP? Well someone has to represent racists and homophobes and if the Tories aren't up to it anymore perhaps UKIP is here to stay?
I wonder which party best represents bigoted fools like you? Certainly none that believe in the basic principles of democracy.
In what way does this show that I don't believe in democracy? I fully accept that Racists and Homophobes should be represented. My question is who is best at doing it?
You show that you don't believe in democracy by seeking to portray the legitimate concerns of a significant portion of the population as being 'racist and homophobic.
Given that all the parties clearly have racists and homophobes in them to try and characterise UKIP as being the main home for those traits is bigoted in the extreme.
Mr. K, the single currency may end up being the economic equivalent of Honorius' killing of Stilicho.
Why do you write such shite ? I know you are anti European, but there is absolutely no reason why the Euro should collapse.
I am afraid the only one writing shite is you by equating opposition to the EU with being anti-European. It is a classic fallacy used by those too lazy to engage in the debate and try to defend the EU. I suspect it is because they know they can't. It is on a par with Fenman's idiotic characterisation of UKIP supporters as racists and homophobes.
And having dealt with the moronic Fenman, to respond to the thread header.
I would certainly hope that UKIP were not around in 10 years - at least not in anything resembling their current form. If they were then it would mean they had probably failed in their primary purpose of getting us out of the EU. If they had achieved that aim then I would see little purpose in their continued existence unless they had become a truly Libertarian party - something which I feel is unfortunately very unlikely.
I used to think this, but now I feel it's more about will, and momentum, than which institutions we're part of. I would love us to be outside the EU, but we could still fail as a country. Better inside the EU with a Thatcher batting for us than outside it with a third column leadership (obviously the best scenario is outside it with great leadership). A country must be solvent, capable of defending itself, and governed on behalf of the people. This will always be a battle that needs fighting.
Even with a Thatcher, the EU is getting to the point where decisions about our country would be made over our heads.
You are right, it is, but also its weaknesses are also showing more in my opinion. We simply don't know what we could achieve with the right leader because we haven't had one since Thatcher left office.
And who is the right leader (excluding UKIP as they would take us out)? Cameron, Miliband, Clegg, Johnson (either of them), May, Gove, Osborne, Cooper, Balls, Burnham, Umanna, Cable, Farrell, Alexander (either)?
I have zero faith in any of them. The other point you seem to ignore is that from next month the vast majority of the remaining vetoes over EU proposals that national leaders hold disappear and QMV takes over and therefore many decisions will be taken out of whoever's hand is our leader. Given we are the most reluctant and independent member it's more than likely we will suffer disproportionately with decisions against our wishes for no other reason than we are not on the same page as the rest of the nations.
As for demonstrating it's weaknesses I agree and those weaknesses are just as likely to drag this country down with them as they are every other country.
Even with a strong capable leader and there is no obvious candidate amongst the establishment parties chances are the EU will do this country serious damage in coming decades. The sooner we are out the better! No matter who our leader is. For the simple reason the EU would not be in the way of our recovery as it has been elsewhere with the PIGS countries.
Ukip won't go away until all the deprived,ignored and taken for granted voters have achieved a solution to their problems,like the people of Jaywick,stuck out on England's anus,out of sight,out of mind.They illustrate a common failure of government,both central and local.Until that central question is answered in practice,Ukip are here to stay.All austerity policies are like serpents whose eggs breed all sorts of right-wing parties across Europe.Bilderberg has given us inequality and Ukip.Get rid of austerity,you get rid of Ukip The LibDems aren't quite dead yet.The Gatwick debate showed the headless chickens still have the odd spasm left.
I agree there was no guarantee that Germany would underwrite the "feckless" (although we should remember that countries like Spain had decent fiscal balances), but the important thing was that the markets believed that they would. Have a look at this chart:
So the Euro caused borrowing prices to drop as if these nations were Germany. Now, you can well say that all of this was the lender's fault, and I'd agree with you. But that doesn't absolve the authorities of responsibility. They brought in a new system that encouraged mass reckless lending to happen and scrapped the usual feedback mechanisms that stop it from happening. And of course, you can't blame lenders for the cheap monetary policy set for Germany.
As for how Greece would have done outside the Euro, we have a clear example of another financial crisis in Iceland:
The Euro made a small boom into a massive unsustainable boom and then locked these countries into a straight jacket when they collapsed. It's now a worst depression than that of the 1920s. The architects of the whole thing are very, very guilty men who should have all resigned in disgrace. As it is, one is now President of the Commission and has ultimate control over our financial sector.
Sight seeing? I hear Raqqa is a beautiful tourist destination.
Allowed back WHY exactly. Canada has had the balls to make these scumbags stateless -we need to do the same.
Canada is smart enough to have an immigration system overwhelmingly of skilled immigrants, while we import tens of thousands from the worst parts of the world: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Eritrea, Nigeria, etc. Is it really any surprise that they are forward-looking about the effect of people coming in from Syria and Iraq while we exacerbate problems for the future?
Mr. K, the single currency may end up being the economic equivalent of Honorius' killing of Stilicho.
Why do you write such shite ? I know you are anti European, but there is absolutely no reason why the Euro should collapse.
I am afraid the only one writing shite is you by equating opposition to the EU with being anti-European. It is a classic fallacy used by those too lazy to engage in the debate and try to defend the EU. I suspect it is because they know they can't. It is on a par with Fenman's idiotic characterisation of UKIP supporters as racists and homophobes.
It´s following on from the politics of demonisation popularised by Mandelson and NuLabour.
Vote UKIP - you are racist, old, uneducated (viz racism), poor, left behind Don´t believe in global warming - you are a climate change denier (compare to Holocaust denier) Don´t believe in the EU federal project - Europhobe, racist, Little Englander Don´t believe in mass immigration - you´re racist Concerned about the growing rise of Islamism - ditto Race based rape gangs in Rotherham - ditto Don´t sign up to the whole gay agenda - homophobe, and sadly on.
However, it now seems the bandying around of the r-word and the various "phobes" have now become so overused they seem to be losing their sting. The climate denier seems to have gone to the dustbin of history. Hopefully followed by the other overused terms of abuse against political and cultural opponents.
Sight seeing? I hear Raqqa is a beautiful tourist destination.
Allowed back WHY exactly. Canada has had the balls to make these scumbags stateless -we need to do the same.
Canada is smart enough to have an immigration system overwhelmingly of skilled immigrants, while we import tens of thousands from the worst parts of the world: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Eritrea, Nigeria, etc. Is it really any surprise that they are forward-looking about the effect of people coming in from Syria and Iraq while we exacerbate problems for the future?
You're both idiots.
I would comment more but I don't go to Bbc links as a general rule - as is currently my freedom of choice.
Sight seeing? I hear Raqqa is a beautiful tourist destination.
Allowed back WHY exactly. Canada has had the balls to make these scumbags stateless -we need to do the same.
Canada is smart enough to have an immigration system overwhelmingly of skilled immigrants, while we import tens of thousands from the worst parts of the world: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Eritrea, Nigeria, etc. Is it really any surprise that they are forward-looking about the effect of people coming in from Syria and Iraq while we exacerbate problems for the future?
Somehow, probably because Tony Blair gifted UK passports like confetti, they are now UK nationals. You can sometimes see them clutching their brand new passports at airport terminals incredulous there are countries which are such push overs. And they even give you a free house! Even, or especially, if you hate the UK.
Seems Canada did not import third world immigration for electoral purposes like Labour did.
Foreign-born population of Canada, top ten nationalities: - United Kingdom - China - India - Philippines - Italy - United States - Hong Kong - Germany - Poland - Vietnam
Foreign-born population of UK, top ten nationalities: - India - Poland - Pakistan - Ireland - Germany - United States - South Africa - Nigeria - Jamaica - Kenya
Now jokes about the Americans and Irish aside, which of those lists contains a lot more problem countries? Now have a guess at which country has immigrants perform as well as native-born kids in school...
UKIP are afraid to say local=white British in case the usual rent-a-mob shout the r-word.
You think so? If they mean "white British", thus excluding people whose families have been in Britain since the 1950s, say, but are the 'wrong' colour, they would indeed be racist.
If they don't mean that and they really mean that the check is whether your grandparents moved around the country or not, they're merely idiotic.
Alternatively they're just thinking up vaguely xenophobic slogans on the hoof without thinking exactly what they do mean.
Seriously: you evidently like this idea, so define the proposed law for us. Who do you think should qualify for social housing in Clacton under this rule, exactly?
Mr. K, the single currency may end up being the economic equivalent of Honorius' killing of Stilicho.
Why do you write such shite ? I know you are anti European, but there is absolutely no reason why the Euro should collapse.
I am afraid the only one writing shite is you by equating opposition to the EU with being anti-European. It is a classic fallacy used by those too lazy to engage in the debate and try to defend the EU. I suspect it is because they know they can't. It is on a par with Fenman's idiotic characterisation of UKIP supporters as racists and homophobes.
It´s following on from the politics of demonisation popularised by Mandelson and NuLabour.
Vote UKIP - you are racist, old, uneducated (viz racism), poor, left behind Don´t believe in global warming - you are a climate change denier (compare to Holocaust denier) Don´t believe in the EU federal project - Europhobe, racist, Little Englander Don´t believe in mass immigration - you´re racist Concerned about the growing rise of Islamism - ditto Race based rape gangs in Rotherham - ditto Don´t sign up to the whole gay agenda - homophobe, and sadly on.
However, it now seems the bandying around of the r-word and the various "phobes" have now become so overused they seem to be losing their sting. The climate denier seems to have gone to the dustbin of history. Hopefully followed by the other overused terms of abuse against political and cultural opponents.
Sight seeing? I hear Raqqa is a beautiful tourist destination.
Allowed back WHY exactly. Canada has had the balls to make these scumbags stateless -we need to do the same.
Canada is smart enough to have an immigration system overwhelmingly of skilled immigrants, while we import tens of thousands from the worst parts of the world: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Eritrea, Nigeria, etc. Is it really any surprise that they are forward-looking about the effect of people coming in from Syria and Iraq while we exacerbate problems for the future?
You're both idiots.
I would comment more but I don't go to Bbc links as a general rule - as is currently my freedom of choice.
Funky lists Socrates - I take it back. Surprised about India and Pakistan, I'd have thought they were all 2nd gen by now. Apparently the semi-mythical poles ain't so mythical - I'm sure they used to go to the pub a lot more often though - not Farage's fault (That's genuinely no sarcasm - I know it can be very very difficult sometimes)
Funky lists Socrates - I take it back. Surprised about India and Pakistan, I'd have thought they were all 2nd gen by now. Apparently the semi-mythical poles ain't so mythical - I'm sure they used to go to the pub a lot more often though - not Farage's fault (That's genuinely no sarcasm - I know it can be very very difficult sometimes)
I believe Pakistan now tops the list for new entrants. A lot of it is family migration: about half of Pakistani British males get wives from the subcontinent.
UKIP are afraid to say local=white British in case the usual rent-a-mob shout the r-word.
You think so? If they mean "white British", thus excluding people whose families have been in Britain since the 1950s, say, but are the 'wrong' colour, they would indeed be racist.
If they don't mean that and they really mean that the check is whether your grandparents moved around the country or not, they're merely idiotic.
Alternatively they're just thinking up vaguely xenophobic slogans on the hoof without thinking exactly what they do mean.
Seriously: you evidently like this idea, so define the proposed law for us. Who do you think should qualify for social housing in Clacton under this rule, exactly?
Surely if you´ve contributed you should get something out (think another poster pointed this out). Perhaps this is against the Labour view of getting something for nothing. Or more likely against the Labour policy of discriminating against white British people.
Do I think the young couple in the example should get priority over the newly arrived third world immigrants. Yes, I do. You clearly don´t. If you feel strongly about this, I hope you will mention this in your election address. I doubt you will. As you will no doubt omit to mention why you think mass immigration was good for the UK.
Perhaps the best description of the societal problem that underpins Ukip is anomie.Define this as the problem first.Then apply age, class,race and gender for the solutions.
Another good pb thread. The Lib Dems are resilient, partly because they appeal to a quirky left-field group that will never be assimilated by the mainstream parties, although the Greens threaten that constituency.
I suspect that respective to the real result the LibDems will outperform and UKIP will under perform compared to current expectations. UKIP have yet to face the full glare of scrutiny and it is going to be 'interesting' to watch.
Perhaps the best description of the societal problem that underpins Ukip is anomie.Define this as the problem first.Then apply age, class,race and gender for the solutions.
Is there a market for the General Election not happening on May 7th? It's unlikely (800-1 unlikely?!) but were there to be an Ebola pandemic you can hardly imagine polling stations being a sensible proposition.
UKIP are afraid to say local=white British in case the usual rent-a-mob shout the r-word.
You think so? If they mean "white British", thus excluding people whose families have been in Britain since the 1950s, say, but are the 'wrong' colour, they would indeed be racist.
If they don't mean that and they really mean that the cic.
Alternatively they're just thinking up vaguely xenophobic slogans on the hoof without thinking exactly what they do mean.
Seriously: you evidently like this idea, so define the proposed law for us. Who do you think should qualify for social housing in Clacton under this rule, exactly?
I know Ukip supporters,ex-pats living in Spain,who are the most vociferous opponents of immigration in the UK.Nearly as hypocritical as The Sun/Mail complaining about breach of their human rights.
Funky lists Socrates - I take it back. Surprised about India and Pakistan, I'd have thought they were all 2nd gen by now. Apparently the semi-mythical poles ain't so mythical - I'm sure they used to go to the pub a lot more often though - not Farage's fault (That's genuinely no sarcasm - I know it can be very very difficult sometimes)
I believe Pakistan now tops the list for new entrants. A lot of it is family migration: about half of Pakistani British males get wives from the subcontinent.
And is one of the main reasons that not only is integration not happening but disparateness and ghettoization is increasing. It would also be easy to stop, if a government had a mind to.
Funky lists Socrates - I take it back. Surprised about India and Pakistan, I'd have thought they were all 2nd gen by now. Apparently the semi-mythical poles ain't so mythical - I'm sure they used to go to the pub a lot more often though - not Farage's fault (That's genuinely no sarcasm - I know it can be very very difficult sometimes)
I believe Pakistan now tops the list for new entrants. A lot of it is family migration: about half of Pakistani British males get wives from the subcontinent.
You would be surprised at how many white British men had wives from the commonwealth, eastern Europe or the far east. Perhaps an implicit rejection of western feminist values?
The Liberal Democrats might disappear, but Liberalism has been written off before and remained.
UKIP? Well someone has to represent racists and homophobes and if the Tories aren't up to it anymore perhaps UKIP is here to stay?
I wonder which party best represents bigoted fools like you? Certainly none that believe in the basic principles of democracy.
In what way does this show that I don't believe in democracy? I fully accept that Racists and Homophobes should be represented. My question is who is best at doing it?
You show that you don't believe in democracy by seeking to portray the legitimate concerns of a significant portion of the population as being 'racist and homophobic.
Given that all the parties clearly have racists and homophobes in them to try and characterise UKIP as being the main home for those traits is bigoted in the extreme.
Suggest you get out and talk to people on the doorstep. Actually UKIP supporters always protest that they are not racists. it usually starts with 'I'm not a racist but....'
And who is the right leader (excluding UKIP as they would take us out)? Cameron, Miliband, Clegg, Johnson (either of them), May, Gove, Osborne, Cooper, Balls, Burnham, Umanna, Cable, Farrell, Alexander (either)?
I have zero faith in any of them. The other point you seem to ignore is that from next month the vast majority of the remaining vetoes over EU proposals that national leaders hold disappear and QMV takes over and therefore many decisions will be taken out of whoever's hand is our leader. Given we are the most reluctant and independent member it's more than likely we will suffer disproportionately with decisions against our wishes for no other reason than we are not on the same page as the rest of the nations.
As for demonstrating it's weaknesses I agree and those weaknesses are just as likely to drag this country down with them as they are every other country.
Even with a strong capable leader and there is no obvious candidate amongst the establishment parties chances are the EU will do this country serious damage in coming decades. The sooner we are out the better! No matter who our leader is. For the simple reason the EU would not be in the way of our recovery as it has been elsewhere with the PIGS countries.
Who's excluding UKIP? You seem to be hung up thinking I want to remain in the EU. I don't, but given the choice of being beholden to a series of repressive treaties, and being ruled by an enemy in disguise, it is obvious the first is bad but preferable. Yes, the EU will continue to do serious damage, but just as having a referendum with the chips stacked against 'out' might be counter-productive, how much more so would actually exiting with a leadership determined to bring us back cap in hand, once and for all?
Why should the new leader be anyone you mention? Thatcher was a shrill, derided education secretary before Airey Neave saw her potential. Who knows what lies in the junior ministerial ranks or on the backbenches? Who knows what lies outside the Commons?
UKIP are afraid to say local=white British in case the usual rent-a-mob shout the r-word.
You think so? If they mean "white British", thus excluding people whose families have been in Britain since the 1950s, say, but are the 'wrong' colour, they would indeed be racist.
If they don't mean that and they really mean that the check is whether your grandparents moved around the country or not, they're merely idiotic.
Alternatively they're just thinking up vaguely xenophobic slogans on the hoof without thinking exactly what they do mean.
Seriously: you evidently like this idea, so define the proposed law for us. Who do you think should qualify for social housing in Clacton under this rule, exactly?
When I googled the phrase it linked to a telegraph article 18 months go, so nothing to do with Clacton I think
Mr. K, the single currency may end up being the economic equivalent of Honorius' killing of Stilicho.
Why do you write such shite ? I know you are anti European, but there is absolutely no reason why the Euro should collapse.
I am afraid the only one writing shite is you by equating opposition to the EU with being anti-European. It is a classic fallacy used by those too lazy to engage in the debate and try to defend the EU. I suspect it is because they know they can't. It is on a par with Fenman's idiotic characterisation of UKIP supporters as racists and homophobes.
It´s following on from the politics of demonisation popularised by Mandelson and NuLabour.
Vote UKIP - you are racist, old, uneducated (viz racism), poor, left behind Don´t believe in global warming - you are a climate change denier (compare to Holocaust denier) Don´t believe in the EU federal project - Europhobe, racist, Little Englander Don´t believe in mass immigration - you´re racist Concerned about the growing rise of Islamism - ditto Race based rape gangs in Rotherham - ditto Don´t sign up to the whole gay agenda - homophobe, and sadly on.
However, it now seems the bandying around of the r-word and the various "phobes" have now become so overused they seem to be losing their sting. The climate denier seems to have gone to the dustbin of history. Hopefully followed by the other overused terms of abuse against political and cultural opponents.
UKIP are afraid to say local=white British in case the usual rent-a-mob shout the r-word.
You think so? If they mean "white British", thus excluding people whose families have been in Britain since the 1950s, say, but are the 'wrong' colour, they would indeed be racist.
If they don't mean that and they really mean that the check is whether your grandparents moved around the country or not, they're merely idiotic.
Alternatively they're just thinking up vaguely xenophobic slogans on the hoof without thinking exactly what they do mean.
Seriously: you evidently like this idea, so define the proposed law for us. Who do you think should qualify for social housing in Clacton under this rule, exactly?
Surely if you´ve contributed you should get something out (think another poster pointed this out). Perhaps this is against the Labour view of getting something for nothing. Or more likely against the Labour policy of discriminating against white British people.
Do I think the young couple in the example should get priority over the newly arrived third world immigrants. Yes, I do. You clearly don´t. If you feel strongly about this, I hope you will mention this in your election address. I doubt you will. As you will no doubt omit to mention why you think mass immigration was good for the UK.
Nick, are you going to answer his earlier question?
Funky lists Socrates - I take it back. Surprised about India and Pakistan, I'd have thought they were all 2nd gen by now. Apparently the semi-mythical poles ain't so mythical - I'm sure they used to go to the pub a lot more often though - not Farage's fault (That's genuinely no sarcasm - I know it can be very very difficult sometimes)
I believe Pakistan now tops the list for new entrants. A lot of it is family migration: about half of Pakistani British males get wives from the subcontinent.
And is one of the main reasons that not only is integration not happening but disparateness and ghettoization is increasing. It would also be easy to stop, if a government had a mind to.
I agree,all of the young Pakistani british people who have been married off on my street have had arranged marriages from partners from Pakistan.
What chance have we of integration with that going on and then in the last 2 or 3 years we have had in my area another wave of immigration of poor unskilled Eastern Europeans.
What chance ? more chance of more riots in the ten years.
Twitter Faisal Islam @faisalislam 46 mins46 minutes ago Simon Hughes to @adamboultonSKY: "if we had a proportional system we'd be in some trouble now"... That's lucky then...
Another good pb thread. The Lib Dems are resilient, partly because they appeal to a quirky left-field group that will never be assimilated by the mainstream parties, although the Greens threaten that constituency.
I suspect that respective to the real result the LibDems will outperform and UKIP will under perform compared to current expectations. UKIP have yet to face the full glare of scrutiny and it is going to be 'interesting' to watch.
Passive aggressive smears, don't people get bored of them?
Do they really think they're being really that clever?
Twitter Faisal Islam @faisalislam 46 mins46 minutes ago Simon Hughes to @adamboultonSKY: "if we had a proportional system we'd be in some trouble now"... That's lucky then...
Another good pb thread. The Lib Dems are resilient, partly because they appeal to a quirky left-field group that will never be assimilated by the mainstream parties, although the Greens threaten that constituency.
I suspect that respective to the real result the LibDems will outperform and UKIP will under perform compared to current expectations. UKIP have yet to face the full glare of scrutiny and it is going to be 'interesting' to watch.
Good point. I don't think that it's 'planned' but the media do have periods where they build a new phenomenon up and then delight in bringing it down. The LibDems found that and I think that UKIP will get their turn too.
You know I love you, but you're so prickly about the Kippers. The LDs were exposed to all sorts of scrutiny that caught them out when they suddenly looked like possible HMG material in 2010.
Kippers haven't had 20% of the same digging about in their skeleton closet.
It's just part of becoming a grown-up party. Chillax, Sir. Stick on some Paul Weller.
Another good pb thread. The Lib Dems are resilient, partly because they appeal to a quirky left-field group that will never be assimilated by the mainstream parties, although the Greens threaten that constituency.
I suspect that respective to the real result the LibDems will outperform and UKIP will under perform compared to current expectations. UKIP have yet to face the full glare of scrutiny and it is going to be 'interesting' to watch.
Passive aggressive smears, don't people get bored of them?
Do they really think they're being really that clever?
The Liberal Democrats might disappear, but Liberalism has been written off before and remained.
UKIP? Well someone has to represent racists and homophobes and if the Tories aren't up to it anymore perhaps UKIP is here to stay?
I wonder which party best represents bigoted fools like you? Certainly none that believe in the basic principles of democracy.
In what way does this show that I don't believe in democracy? I fully accept that Racists and Homophobes should be represented. My question is who is best at doing it?
You show that you don't believe in democracy by seeking to portray the legitimate concerns of a significant portion of the population as being 'racist and homophobic.
Given that all the parties clearly have racists and homophobes in them to try and characterise UKIP as being the main home for those traits is bigoted in the extreme.
What exactly is the Lib Dem position on airport expansion? I don't believe its easy selling it on the doorstep to those affected, mind, but are we just supposed to sit back and allow other Western European countries to win more traffic?
Funky lists Socrates - I take it back. Surprised about India and Pakistan, I'd have thought they were all 2nd gen by now. Apparently the semi-mythical poles ain't so mythical - I'm sure they used to go to the pub a lot more often though - not Farage's fault (That's genuinely no sarcasm - I know it can be very very difficult sometimes)
I believe Pakistan now tops the list for new entrants. A lot of it is family migration: about half of Pakistani British males get wives from the subcontinent.
And is one of the main reasons that not only is integration not happening but disparateness and ghettoization is increasing. It would also be easy to stop, if a government had a mind to.
How would it be easy to stop, David? Do we ban people from marrying foreign nationals?
I agree it's a problem we need to address. I'm just not sure how. How would you do that without (say) stopping a Englishman marrying an Australian wife?
Do we make marriage subject to an English language or income test?
David Cameron has issued a rebuke to Nicola Sturgeon by calling on the nationalists to honour their pre-referendum pledge that the vote would settle the independence debate for at least a generation.
The Prime Minister said the September 18 vote had produced a “very clear result” in favour of the Union and quoted Alex Salmond as stating the referendum would possibly decide the issue for a lifetime.
Apologies. Some idiot* whilst preparing the next thread, suffered from premature posting, and accidentally published the next thread. For the avoidance of doubt, I've not seen tonight's YouGov
Funky lists Socrates - I take it back. Surprised about India and Pakistan, I'd have thought they were all 2nd gen by now. Apparently the semi-mythical poles ain't so mythical - I'm sure they used to go to the pub a lot more often though - not Farage's fault (That's genuinely no sarcasm - I know it can be very very difficult sometimes)
I believe Pakistan now tops the list for new entrants. A lot of it is family migration: about half of Pakistani British males get wives from the subcontinent.
And is one of the main reasons that not only is integration not happening but disparateness and ghettoization is increasing. It would also be easy to stop, if a government had a mind to.
How would you do that without (say) stopping a Englishman marrying an Australian wife? .
I think they already seem to do that anyway.
I know an English/Australian married couple who have to spend six months in Portugal because the wife isn't allowed in the UK for any longer than the other six months a year.
It's just people from the third world that they wave into the country with a minimum of fuss.
Apologies. Some idiot* whilst preparing the next thread, suffered from premature posting, and accidentally published the next thread. For the avoidance of doubt, I've not seen tonight's YouGov
*Me
The bit about volatility during conference season, and awaiting ICM to give another viewpoint, doesn't convince me that the Conservatives are pulling away just yet ...
The Liberal Democrats might disappear, but Liberalism has been written off before and remained.
UKIP? Well someone has to represent racists and homophobes and if the Tories aren't up to it anymore perhaps UKIP is here to stay?
I wonder which party best represents bigoted fools like you? Certainly none that believe in the basic principles of democracy.
In what way does this show that I don't believe in democracy? I fully accept that Racists and Homophobes should be represented. My question is who is best at doing it?
You show that you don't believe in democracy by seeking to portray the legitimate concerns of a significant portion of the population as being 'racist and homophobic.
Given that all the parties clearly have racists and homophobes in them to try and characterise UKIP as being the main home for those traits is bigoted in the extreme.
Except of course he didn't praise him at all. If you are having to rely on that sort of rubbish to back your point up then you really are dumber than I thought... which actually would be difficult.
Another good pb thread. The Lib Dems are resilient, partly because they appeal to a quirky left-field group that will never be assimilated by the mainstream parties, although the Greens threaten that constituency.
I suspect that respective to the real result the LibDems will outperform and UKIP will under perform compared to current expectations. UKIP have yet to face the full glare of scrutiny and it is going to be 'interesting' to watch.
Good point. I don't think that it's 'planned' but the media do have periods where they build a new phenomenon up and then delight in bringing it down. The LibDems found that and I think that UKIP will get their turn too.
Having thrown mud at UKIP especially for 6 weeks before the May elections and all year at a lesser rate, the MSM has surely has thrown more than enough. ...Oh wait!
Funky lists Socrates - I take it back. Surprised about India and Pakistan, I'd have thought they were all 2nd gen by now. Apparently the semi-mythical poles ain't so mythical - I'm sure they used to go to the pub a lot more often though - not Farage's fault (That's genuinely no sarcasm - I know it can be very very difficult sometimes)
I believe Pakistan now tops the list for new entrants. A lot of it is family migration: about half of Pakistani British males get wives from the subcontinent.
And is one of the main reasons that not only is integration not happening but disparateness and ghettoization is increasing. It would also be easy to stop, if a government had a mind to.
The wives are their property, completely. The muslim culture is all about male dominance.
Funky lists Socrates - I take it back. Surprised about India and Pakistan, I'd have thought they were all 2nd gen by now. Apparently the semi-mythical poles ain't so mythical - I'm sure they used to go to the pub a lot more often though - not Farage's fault (That's genuinely no sarcasm - I know it can be very very difficult sometimes)
I believe Pakistan now tops the list for new entrants. A lot of it is family migration: about half of Pakistani British males get wives from the subcontinent.
And is one of the main reasons that not only is integration not happening but disparateness and ghettoization is increasing. It would also be easy to stop, if a government had a mind to.
How would it be easy to stop, David? Do we ban people from marrying foreign nationals?
I agree it's a problem we need to address. I'm just not sure how. How would you do that without (say) stopping a Englishman marrying an Australian wife?
Do we make marriage subject to an English language or income test?
Genuinely interested in suggestions.
You don't need to stop them from marrying; if they want to live in Pakistan or a third country then that's their call. But yes, some form of income or skills test should be applied to all individuals seeking to settle in the country from outside the EU, whether they come via marriage, as individuals or whatever.
Funky lists Socrates - I take it back. Surprised about India and Pakistan, I'd have thought they were all 2nd gen by now. Apparently the semi-mythical poles ain't so mythical - I'm sure they used to go to the pub a lot more often though - not Farage's fault (That's genuinely no sarcasm - I know it can be very very difficult sometimes)
I believe Pakistan now tops the list for new entrants. A lot of it is family migration: about half of Pakistani British males get wives from the subcontinent.
And is one of the main reasons that not only is integration not happening but disparateness and ghettoization is increasing. It would also be easy to stop, if a government had a mind to.
How would it be easy to stop, David? Do we ban people from marrying foreign nationals?
I agree it's a problem we need to address. I'm just not sure how. How would you do that without (say) stopping a Englishman marrying an Australian wife?
Do we make marriage subject to an English language or income test?
Genuinely interested in suggestions.
We already do.
The coalition introduced back in 2012, to bring in a non European spouses, you have to earn a minimum of 19k. Which was an increase of 5k.
Which is the reason why I was invited to lot of Pakistani weddings in the early part of 2012
The Liberal Democrats might disappear, but Liberalism has been written off before and remained.
UKIP? Well someone has to represent racists and homophobes and if the Tories aren't up to it anymore perhaps UKIP is here to stay?
I wonder which party best represents bigoted fools like you? Certainly none that believe in the basic principles of democracy.
In what way does this show that I don't believe in democracy? I fully accept that Racists and Homophobes should be represented. My question is who is best at doing it?
You show that you don't believe in democracy by seeking to portray the legitimate concerns of a significant portion of the population as being 'racist and homophobic.
Given that all the parties clearly have racists and homophobes in them to try and characterise UKIP as being the main home for those traits is bigoted in the extreme.
Suggest you get out and talk to people on the doorstep. Actually UKIP supporters always protest that they are not racists. it usually starts with 'I'm not a racist but....'
As I've said before. If UKIP were hardline racists (the sort of people who disinherit their children for marrying someone black) or rude to individual people of different races in their day to day behaviour, then they would be deemed repellent.
However, I don't think a lot of C1s C2s, D's and E's (and even some B's) would be greatly bothered if UKIP were a bit racist, by elite standards (which they are not; as they rapidly throw anyone out who is).
Many C1s C2s, D's and E's would know plenty of people (friends and family) who have such "a bit racist" opinions by elite standards and some probably think it would make them "more like us".
Others might think that such views held by family or friends are a bit naughty, in the same way that not paying your fine for returning books back to the library is a bit naughty but not something serious enough to fall out over unless they descend into being rude to their mates indian girlfriend.
Often the racism that irritates them is positive discrimination and hate laws, because they feel that these make them second class citizens with less rights than ethnic minorites. Often such sentiments are spoken in a low voice with weary resignation, only to the trusted of course, in the same way as Soviet citizens would talk derogatively about Cde Brezhnev only in a low voice to trusted company.
I really think that our elite don't know what is going to hit them over the next two or three general elections. Fortunately it is a libertarian party that has broken through, not a charismatic smooth talking fascist.
Apologies. Some idiot* whilst preparing the next thread, suffered from premature posting, and accidentally published the next thread. For the avoidance of doubt, I've not seen tonight's YouGov
*Me
Premature posting *ahem*.. happens to the best of us.
Funky lists Socrates - I take it back. Surprised about India and Pakistan, I'd have thought they were all 2nd gen by now. Apparently the semi-mythical poles ain't so mythical - I'm sure they used to go to the pub a lot more often though - not Farage's fault (That's genuinely no sarcasm - I know it can be very very difficult sometimes)
I believe Pakistan now tops the list for new entrants. A lot of it is family migration: about half of Pakistani British males get wives from the subcontinent.
And is one of the main reasons that not only is integration not happening but disparateness and ghettoization is increasing. It would also be easy to stop, if a government had a mind to.
How would it be easy to stop, David? Do we ban people from marrying foreign nationals?
I agree it's a problem we need to address. I'm just not sure how. How would you do that without (say) stopping a Englishman marrying an Australian wife?
Do we make marriage subject to an English language or income test?
Genuinely interested in suggestions.
We already do.
The coalition introduced back in 2012, to bring in a non European spouses, you have to earn a minimum of 19k. Which was an increase of 5k.
Which is the reason why I was invited to lot of Pakistani weddings in the early part of 2012
Argh, sorry TSE. Of course, I knew that! Wasn't thinking.. Cheers.
Still, it clearly hasn't "worked" in reducing spouse immigration from its current high levels. So what other steps are open?
'What exactly is the Lib Dem position on airport expansion? '
Previously suggested that an additional runway could be built at Gatwick as they don't have any seats to defend in the area.
But to-day they voted for no more runways to be built anywhere in the south of England.
Either a case of stop the world the Lib Dems want to get off or they are petrified of the Greens.
How do the burghers of Lewes feel? Although not sure how the LGW flighpaths are structured. LHR seem to be W-E rather than N~S so maybe the same for LGW.
UKIP are afraid to say local=white British in case the usual rent-a-mob shout the r-word.
You think so? If they mean "white British", thus excluding people whose families have been in Britain since the 1950s, say, but are the 'wrong' colour, they would indeed be racist.
If they don't mean that and they really mean that the cic.
Alternatively they're just thinking up vaguely xenophobic slogans on the hoof without thinking exactly what they do mean.
Seriously: you evidently like this idea, so define the proposed law for us. Who do you think should qualify for social housing in Clacton under this rule, exactly?
I know Ukip supporters,ex-pats living in Spain,who are the most vociferous opponents of immigration in the UK.Nearly as hypocritical as The Sun/Mail complaining about breach of their human rights.
They're almost certainly not complaining about immigrants from Spain so it isn't hypocritical in the slightest.
At what point are people going to be less bothered whether someone is or isn't racist and start being more bothered about the effects of mass immigration from the third world?
I couldn't access pb earlier so I don't know if Dan Hodges' latest column has been discussed. I have to that as much as I often disagree with Dan, his argument was very compelling. Is Clegg about to resign?
Comments
Any value in the 2/1?
Lab 34.0
Con 33.2
UKIP 14.6
LD 7.9
Lab lead 0.8
And, just for the record, if "locally" is Essex, as a long-term Essex resident and passer of the Tebbitt Essex cricket test, none of either my or my wife's grandparents or parents were born in Essex! Same applies to my children!
Politics tends to have a very great deal of institutional inertia and FPTP multiplies that three- or four-fold. For UKIP to have broken through to the extent that they have is a massive achievement but it may still net them next-to-no seats come the GE. The Lib Dems, possibly with half UKIP's vote, could easily take thirty or more. If so, that will keep them their place at the table.
That's not just a metaphor. One thing that keeps the Lib Dems relevant is the fact that, for example, the main news channels covered their conference in detail. The Greens - polling at roughly the same level - got nothing; UKIP received a lot less. The Lib Dems are still treated by the media as a major party while UKIP get much less and the rest practically nothing at all. If they were to perform badly enough next May that placing them alongside Con and Lab (and ahead of UKIP) became unsustainable, that really would be difficult.
It's true that the Liberals have recovered before but things are different now from 1950 or 1990. In the 1950s there really were no other alternatives to Labour or the Tories; the only way to protest against both other parties was to go Liberal (and even then, it took firstly the shambles of the Heath-Wilson years and then the SDP split to recover just a fraction of the damage done since 1931). In 1990, the Lib Dems had a much more formidable local base in enough areas, there were plenty of people who'd already tried third-party politics, the Greens were too other-worldly to capitalise on their electoral good fortune, and there was still no-one else beyond (in England at least). Now there is a plethora of hungry minor parties ready to wait for one of the big boys to slip. They might not have the activist base of the Lib Dems but that's something that might develop with time.
Suppose Labour wins a narrow majority next time, or even ends up in coalition with the Lib Dems. Do we really suppose that UKIP wouldn't try to eat much further into the Labour heartlands, when they've already made a decent start with Labour in opposition? Even if UKIP only end up with, say, three seats in 2015 (and that would still represent a considerable breakthrough), they'd could advance much further come 2020 (or earlier), becoming the third party in the process. It's far from guaranteed but it's also far from impossible.
The Lib Dems' future relies on them being one of the Big Three. Without that, what is their purpose? A federation of local independents simply isn't enough.
Prescient view on what local is! Leeds? Bradford! Beeston? Or Ilkeston, that really is foreign!!
However, what is your view. What will you tell your prospective constituents. Social housing should go first to the third world family just moved to the UK with 5 children or the young couple whose family has been in Notts for generations, been paying taxes for years....
BTW will you tell your prospective constituents why you think continued mass immigration is good? Or what specific benefits it has brought? Presumably apart from curry houses.
You're right that immigration levels should be addressed directly.
But the Labour party (none of the parties really) has not satisfactorily resolved the tension between a welfare state where people pay in and rely on it when they need it and one where its benefits are distributed to people purely based on need, regardless of whether they or their families have contributed anything.
You may think that a needs based welfare system is fair but you need to understand that, from other perspectives - often the perspective of traditional Labour voters - it can look hugely unfair.
Little wonder I misunderstood you. What you have written this time is very different to what you wrote originally.
As for allowing the PIIGS countries to borrow too much, that was as much the lenders' fault as much as anything. No-one forced them to lend at such low rates.
I agree that the ECB hasn't handled the recovery well but if we think that Greece (say) would have done much better with the Drachma then I'd say we're deluding ourselves. Yes, they could have inflated and devalued but that would have pushed up import prices, foreign currency debt repayments and interest rates and been no bed of roses either.
Although if you were all watching Channel 4 I am vindicated!!!
Given that all the parties clearly have racists and homophobes in them to try and characterise UKIP as being the main home for those traits is bigoted in the extreme.
Officials said one individual had spent time in Syria.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29519757
Sight seeing? I hear Raqqa is a beautiful tourist destination.
I have zero faith in any of them. The other point you seem to ignore is that from next month the vast majority of the remaining vetoes over EU proposals that national leaders hold disappear and QMV takes over and therefore many decisions will be taken out of whoever's hand is our leader. Given we are the most reluctant and independent member it's more than likely we will suffer disproportionately with decisions against our wishes for no other reason than we are not on the same page as the rest of the nations.
As for demonstrating it's weaknesses I agree and those weaknesses are just as likely to drag this country down with them as they are every other country.
Even with a strong capable leader and there is no obvious candidate amongst the establishment parties chances are the EU will do this country serious damage in coming decades. The sooner we are out the better! No matter who our leader is. For the simple reason the EU would not be in the way of our recovery as it has been elsewhere with the PIGS countries.
The LibDems aren't quite dead yet.The Gatwick debate showed the headless chickens still have the odd spasm left.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FQlYzTRmfYA/TlGmSFsJifI/AAAAAAAAAPk/bFQeviX7OkE/s1600/Interest+rates+since+1990.jpg
So the Euro caused borrowing prices to drop as if these nations were Germany. Now, you can well say that all of this was the lender's fault, and I'd agree with you. But that doesn't absolve the authorities of responsibility. They brought in a new system that encouraged mass reckless lending to happen and scrapped the usual feedback mechanisms that stop it from happening. And of course, you can't blame lenders for the cheap monetary policy set for Germany.
As for how Greece would have done outside the Euro, we have a clear example of another financial crisis in Iceland:
http://tinyurl.com/katos92
It hurts, but a recovery is happening.
The Euro made a small boom into a massive unsustainable boom and then locked these countries into a straight jacket when they collapsed. It's now a worst depression than that of the 1920s. The architects of the whole thing are very, very guilty men who should have all resigned in disgrace. As it is, one is now President of the Commission and has ultimate control over our financial sector.
It´s following on from the politics of demonisation popularised by Mandelson and NuLabour.
Vote UKIP - you are racist, old, uneducated (viz racism), poor, left behind
Don´t believe in global warming - you are a climate change denier (compare to Holocaust denier)
Don´t believe in the EU federal project - Europhobe, racist, Little Englander
Don´t believe in mass immigration - you´re racist
Concerned about the growing rise of Islamism - ditto
Race based rape gangs in Rotherham - ditto
Don´t sign up to the whole gay agenda - homophobe, and sadly on.
However, it now seems the bandying around of the r-word and the various "phobes" have now become so overused they seem to be losing their sting. The climate denier seems to have gone to the dustbin of history. Hopefully followed by the other overused terms of abuse against political and cultural opponents.
I would comment more but I don't go to Bbc links as a general rule - as is currently my freedom of choice.
Its against something called ´"international law". God knows what this is. And who signed us up for it. Or who decides what it is.
Although Cherie Blair and her cronies are getting rich on it.
Seems Canada did not import third world immigration for electoral purposes like Labour did.
- United Kingdom
- China
- India
- Philippines
- Italy
- United States
- Hong Kong
- Germany
- Poland
- Vietnam
Foreign-born population of UK, top ten nationalities:
- India
- Poland
- Pakistan
- Ireland
- Germany
- United States
- South Africa
- Nigeria
- Jamaica
- Kenya
Now jokes about the Americans and Irish aside, which of those lists contains a lot more problem countries? Now have a guess at which country has immigrants perform as well as native-born kids in school...
If they don't mean that and they really mean that the check is whether your grandparents moved around the country or not, they're merely idiotic.
Alternatively they're just thinking up vaguely xenophobic slogans on the hoof without thinking exactly what they do mean.
Seriously: you evidently like this idea, so define the proposed law for us. Who do you think should qualify for social housing in Clacton under this rule, exactly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEBH3LohMQo
North: Angela Paterson.
South: Sadik Chaudhury.
http://southlincslibdems.org.uk/en/article/2014/912463/lib-dems-announce-parliamentary-candidates-to-fight-for-northampton
LD, Congleton: Peter Hirst (reselection).
http://www.middlewichguardian.co.uk/news/11514104.Middlewich_councillor_to_stand_as_Lib_Dem_candidate/
Do I think the young couple in the example should get priority over the newly arrived third world immigrants. Yes, I do. You clearly don´t. If you feel strongly about this, I hope you will mention this in your election address. I doubt you will. As you will no doubt omit to mention why you think mass immigration was good for the UK.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/26587/anomie
I suspect that respective to the real result the LibDems will outperform and UKIP will under perform compared to current expectations. UKIP have yet to face the full glare of scrutiny and it is going to be 'interesting' to watch.
Is there a market for the General Election not happening on May 7th? It's unlikely (800-1 unlikely?!) but were there to be an Ebola pandemic you can hardly imagine polling stations being a sensible proposition.
I know Ukip supporters,ex-pats living in Spain,who are the most vociferous opponents of immigration in the UK.Nearly as hypocritical as The Sun/Mail complaining about breach of their human rights.
Why should the new leader be anyone you mention? Thatcher was a shrill, derided education secretary before Airey Neave saw her potential. Who knows what lies in the junior ministerial ranks or on the backbenches? Who knows what lies outside the Commons?
It's poisonous.
What chance have we of integration with that going on and then in the last 2 or 3 years we have had in my area another wave of immigration of poor unskilled Eastern Europeans.
What chance ? more chance of more riots in the ten years.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 46 mins46 minutes ago
Simon Hughes to @adamboultonSKY: "if we had a proportional system we'd be in some trouble now"... That's lucky then...
Do they really think they're being really that clever?
Kippers haven't had 20% of the same digging about in their skeleton closet.
It's just part of becoming a grown-up party. Chillax, Sir. Stick on some Paul Weller.
Has what?
Moved the goalposts?
Killed the squirrel?
Installed OGH into the lords?
Made me supreme overlord?
Exploded?
I agree it's a problem we need to address. I'm just not sure how. How would you do that without (say) stopping a Englishman marrying an Australian wife?
Do we make marriage subject to an English language or income test?
Genuinely interested in suggestions.
*Me
I know an English/Australian married couple who have to spend six months in Portugal because the wife isn't allowed in the UK for any longer than the other six months a year.
It's just people from the third world that they wave into the country with a minimum of fuss.
The coalition introduced back in 2012, to bring in a non European spouses, you have to earn a minimum of 19k. Which was an increase of 5k.
Which is the reason why I was invited to lot of Pakistani weddings in the early part of 2012
However, I don't think a lot of C1s C2s, D's and E's (and even some B's) would be greatly bothered if UKIP were a bit racist, by elite standards (which they are not; as they rapidly throw anyone out who is).
Many C1s C2s, D's and E's would know plenty of people (friends and family) who have such "a bit racist" opinions by elite standards and some probably think it would make them "more like us".
Others might think that such views held by family or friends are a bit naughty, in the same way that not paying your fine for returning books back to the library is a bit naughty but not something serious enough to fall out over unless they descend into being rude to their mates indian girlfriend.
Often the racism that irritates them is positive discrimination and hate laws, because they feel that these make them second class citizens with less rights than ethnic minorites. Often such sentiments are spoken in a low voice with weary resignation, only to the trusted of course, in the same way as Soviet citizens would talk derogatively about Cde Brezhnev only in a low voice to trusted company.
I really think that our elite don't know what is going to hit them over the next two or three general elections. Fortunately it is a libertarian party that has broken through, not a charismatic smooth talking fascist.
'What exactly is the Lib Dem position on airport expansion? '
Previously suggested that an additional runway could be built at Gatwick as they don't have any seats to defend in the area.
But to-day they voted for no more runways to be built anywhere in the south of England.
Either a case of stop the world the Lib Dems want to get off or they are petrified of the Greens.
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/thatcher-in-a-tank/
This is how it should be done.
http://i.imgur.com/D4XauDc.jpg
Still, it clearly hasn't "worked" in reducing spouse immigration from its current high levels. So what other steps are open?
Still, there must be some LGW jobs in Lewes.
http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/margaret-thatcher-falkland-islands-argentina-surrender-1983/
Did Clarkson pack that one in his luggage for that Porsche H1982FKL.
I'd suggest it's happening already.
There are some interesting proposals here, but less so on spousal immigration, and they seem to make some big assumptions about the overall effects on migration figures: http://www.balancedmigration.com/content/uploads/2012/10/ourcase.pdf
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100288910/nick-clegg-is-relaxed-hes-happy-hes-wearing-jeans-because-hes-about-to-quit/
LDs propose to reduce CGT threshold from £11,000 to £2,500.
Plus they will raise CGT top rate from 28% to approx 40%.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-10-07/clegg-plans-tax-rise-for-u-dot-k-dot-rich-to-fund-cuts-for-rest