In other Scottish news SNP membership has just hit 80,000.
2500 new members a day since the referendum.
My back of the envelope calculation indicates that 80,000 Scots is the equivalent of almost a million UK adults when taken on an equivalent basis. Surely there must be some optimism that the SNP will do well at GE2015 -
Labour: 36% (+3) Conservative: 15% (-2) SNP: 38% (nc) Liberal Democrat: 5% (-1) Another party (Net): 6% (-1)
I'm not suggesting for a minute they will get anywhere near Labour in seats, but I think 4 or 5 gains is perfectly possible !
If you're the SNP then, having lost the referendum vote, a perfectly sensible strategy is to maximise your representation at Westminster so you can extract the maximum concessions from the UK government in the event of a hung parliament.
Therefore, expect the lion's share of those new members willing to do groundwork to be used as foot soldiers in around 8-10 target seats in Scotland. I think quite a few will fall to the SNP.
Dundee West odds on SNP are a gift.
It's all about what percentage of the new members are directionless angry people lashing out in a very middle class but impotent way ("Grr, I've got to do something I'll join a political party!") and what percentage will be willing to burn the shoe leather to do the canvassing and post the envelopes. How many are appreciating the long game.
It might be very deflating for these new members to get votes wise spectacular results (like 7%+ swings turning generational safe seats into marginals for the next election) but not actually knock over that many Labour seats and fail to see what they've achieved and thus walk away in a years time.
As well as I think the SNP are doing, 7-4 about the SNP and 2-5 Labour in Dundee West looks about right to me. Perhaps marginal value in the SNP, but I can't say I'm tempted to add at 7-4.
I'm scratching my head as to why I only have £10 on the SNP in Gordon at 5-4 however !
Though the £10 in Dunbartonshire East at 50-1 is probably my best bet value wise in the portfolio.
SNP still ahead of Labour in the Scottish subsample.
Subsample means bollocks all.
For Populus, sure - but with Yougov they produce so many that you can get meaningful data out of them by looking back at the last 10 and summing the figures or so.
And by my (And Electoral Calculus) calculations the SNP are ahead of Labour in Scotland which is just as meteoric as what UKIP are achieving in England.
I've got a thread on Scottish sub samples coming up in the next week.
You may be surprised.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I looked at some sub samples prior to the 2010 Election and SNP were as grossly over stated then as they are now. My real question is why are SNP so massively overstated in the sub-samples?
My theory is this that the online polling panels are disproportionately made up of SNP leaners, as effectively these panels are almost self selecting, unlike phone polls which are a bit more random.
My evidence for this
1) Two out the three most accurate pollsters in the indyref were phone pollsters
2) Last year, Panelbase shut its polls to new members amid speculation about an "organised sign-up of Yes campaigners" trying to influence the outcome.
There's definitely self selection going on and it certainly make sense for it to be in favour of Nationalists, but the indie ref polling was out by 4 percentage points. The Scottish sub samples are out by 10+ compared to Scotland specific phone polling.
What we really need is a Scottish Westminster election by-election.
For the lolz I think the SNP should run some candidates in the far-north of England.
The thing is, the author of that article is doing the same dishonesty. Take this line:
"If they think European Union membership has made immigration impossible to control, then vote Tory: only Cameron will grant a referendum in 2017."
Cameron of course doesn't support doing anything about EU immigration. He will seek some repatriation that he can claim does something about it (like no benefits for immigrants for six months) and then use it to try to fool as many voters as possible that the EU immigration issue has been addressed. Of course, if he wins the referendum based on a "fool the people some of the time" principle for six months, then we'll be back to where we started and people will just be angrier they were betrayed.
In this case, it's also bonkers. Cameron WILL hold a referendum in 2017, if he is PM.
SNP still ahead of Labour in the Scottish subsample.
Subsample means bollocks all.
For Populus, sure - but with Yougov they produce so many that you can get meaningful data out of them by looking back at the last 10 and summing the figures or so.
And by my (And Electoral Calculus) calculations the SNP are ahead of Labour in Scotland which is just as meteoric as what UKIP are achieving in England.
I've got a thread on Scottish sub samples coming up in the next week.
You may be surprised.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I looked at some sub samples prior to the 2010 Election and SNP were as grossly over stated then as they are now. My real question is why are SNP so massively overstated in the sub-samples?
My theory is this that the online polling panels are disproportionately made up of SNP leaners, as effectively these panels are almost self selecting, unlike phone polls which are a bit more random.
My evidence for this
1) Two out the three most accurate pollsters in the indyref were phone pollsters
2) Last year, Panelbase shut its polls to new members amid speculation about an "organised sign-up of Yes campaigners" trying to influence the outcome.
There's definitely self selection going on and it certainly make sense for it to be in favour of Nationalists, but the indie ref polling was out by 4 percentage points. The Scottish sub samples are out by 10+ compared to Scotland specific phone polling.
What we really need is a Scottish Westminster election by-election.
For the lolz I think the SNP should run some candidates in the far-north of England.
:O)
Give it a go, you'd beat the Lib Dems that is for certain.
We're all putting a brave face on it but a pretty depressing day for the UK or more particularly England. The most pertinant comment today was "England's just got a whole lot smaller".
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It's the dawning of the age of Socrates.
What a horrible thought
I agree with Roger.. (apart from the dig at another poster)
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
"Ignorance" that is carried out by such noted reactionaries as the Federal Republic of Germany.
The Tories didn't just lose theirs. They got utterly pulverised.
Net, Labour are more likely to win next year going by last night's result.
Yet the usual suspects are trying to spin it as terrible for Labour.
Gotta laugh.
Yes, I do have to laugh.
At the fact that you can't see how bad this was for Labour. The main opposition party nearly loses a very safe seat in a by-election - 7 months before the next General Election.
There is no way to spin that as being good for Labour. None at all.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
Flounce, flounce, flounce We do this already with TB. Why is HIV privileged? Is it a vital ingredient of a vibrant multi-cultural Britain in a way TB isn't? If so, isn't that a bit virusist?
Why were the pollsters fairly accurate in one contest between UKIP and a 'big two' party, but the same two pollsters so wrong in another? It is possible that there might be a Carswell effect, a turnout effect, or maybe a difference in sampling bias between these two equal and opposite seats.
Also, never rule out the possibility of a new "radical left wing independence" party popping up before the GE and siphoning off enthusiastic campaigners from the SNP.
And I am not sure it´s a gaffe. The great and the good are scandalised. The riff raff are supporting.
What other illnesses would you apply it to? TB? Diabetes? Cancer? Why just HIV?
Because HIV continues to be, especially among people of a certain age, associated with specific lifestyle choices
If you were to say AIDS And TB yes, cancer and diabetes No, I wonder what the reasoning might be?
Well it could be that you don't like poor people from Africa.
Or it could be that AIDS and TB are communicable
It might be that you don't blame diabetics for failure to control their behaviour but you do blame AIDS victims for the same.
But in essence Farage is blowing a loud dog whistle and then lots of UKIP supporters scurry around trying to prove it wasn't a dog whistle because it wasn't meant to mean what people intepreted it as. But they ignore th fact that most people don't read PB and will just hear the whistle.
(If he had said that new immigrants shouldn't have free access to the NHS for a number of years that would have been entirely respectable. Aiming to restrict immigration by implying that foreigners are sick and nasty is, well, just sick and nasty).
Unusual garbage from you there Charles.
All he had to say in response to the interviewer (nb: haven't listened to the piece but going on what @Socrates said) was "amongst, other diseases, yes, people with HIV should not be allowed to enter"
The problem is that I think Farage is too smart not to know that he has some unpleasant supporters and needs to pander occasionally
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
"Ignorance" that is carried out by such noted reactionaries as the Federal Republic of Germany.
This is how Farage introduced HIV:
But Zimbabweans come, to put it bluntly, with the wrong skills, in the wrong colour skin and possibly, given the HIV rates there, in the wrong state of health.
I am sick of hearing politicians say that they are "listening" to me. They aren't. If they were they'd bloody well do something about the matters which worry voters.
Have you considered the possibility that there isn't a lot more they can do, that they are not doing already?
Just a thought, you know. Reality is a hard task mistress. Governments have to face it. Oppositions, and more especially protest parties, don't.
I don't think the 'It's alright we're heading into even more excrement and can't do anything about it' line will work out on the campaign trail
In other Scottish news SNP membership has just hit 80,000.
2500 new members a day since the referendum.
My back of the envelope calculation indicates that 80,000 Scots is the equivalent of almost a million UK adults when taken on an equivalent basis. Surely there must be some optimism that the SNP will do well at GE2015 -
Labour: 36% (+3) Conservative: 15% (-2) SNP: 38% (nc) Liberal Democrat: 5% (-1) Another party (Net): 6% (-1)
I'm not suggesting for a minute they will get anywhere near Labour in seats, but I think 4 or 5 gains is perfectly possible !
If you're the SNP then, having lost the referendum vote, a perfectly sensible strategy is to maximise your representation at Westminster so you can extract the maximum concessions from the UK government in the event of a hung parliament.
Therefore, expect the lion's share of those new members willing to do groundwork to be used as foot soldiers in around 8-10 target seats in Scotland. I think quite a few will fall to the SNP.
Dundee West odds on SNP are a gift.
It's all about what percentage of the new members are directionless angry people lashing out in a very middle class but impotent way ("Grr, I've got to do something I'll join a political party!") and what percentage will be willing to burn the shoe leather to do the canvassing and post the envelopes. How many are appreciating the long game.
It might be very deflating for these new members to get votes wise spectacular results (like 7%+ swings turning generational safe seats into marginals for the next election) but not actually knock over that many Labour seats and fail to see what they've achieved and thus walk away in a years time.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
"Ignorance" that is carried out by such noted reactionaries as the Federal Republic of Germany.
This is how Farage introduced HIV:
But Zimbabweans come, to put it bluntly, with the wrong skills, in the wrong colour skin and possibly, given the HIV rates there, in the wrong state of health.
SNP still ahead of Labour in the Scottish subsample.
Subsample means bollocks all.
For Populus, sure - but with Yougov they produce so many that you can get meaningful data out of them by looking back at the last 10 and summing the figures or so.
And by my (And Electoral Calculus) calculations the SNP are ahead of Labour in Scotland which is just as meteoric as what UKIP are achieving in England.
I've got a thread on Scottish sub samples coming up in the next week.
You may be surprised.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I looked at some sub samples prior to the 2010 Election and SNP were as grossly over stated then as they are now. My real question is why are SNP so massively overstated in the sub-samples?
My theory is this that the online polling panels are disproportionately made up of SNP leaners, as effectively these panels are almost self selecting, unlike phone polls which are a bit more random.
My evidence for this
1) Two out the three most accurate pollsters in the indyref were phone pollsters
2) Last year, Panelbase shut its polls to new members amid speculation about an "organised sign-up of Yes campaigners" trying to influence the outcome.
There's definitely self selection going on and it certainly make sense for it to be in favour of Nationalists, but the indie ref polling was out by 4 percentage points. The Scottish sub samples are out by 10+ compared to Scotland specific phone polling.
What we really need is a Scottish Westminster election by-election.
For the lolz I think the SNP should run some candidates in the far-north of England.
:O)
Give it a go, you'd beat the Lib Dems that is for certain.
Stand in Berwick-upon-Tweed on a reunification platform.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
"Ignorance" that is carried out by such noted reactionaries as the Federal Republic of Germany.
This is how Farage introduced HIV:
But Zimbabweans come, to put it bluntly, with the wrong skills, in the wrong colour skin and possibly, given the HIV rates there, in the wrong state of health.
Wha? Huh? Really? He actually said that? I'd very much like to hear isam or socrates et al defend that little beauty. EDIT: As pointed out by the Pulpstar and isam, it was the interviewer who said that.
And I am not sure it´s a gaffe. The great and the good are scandalised. The riff raff are supporting.
What other illnesses would you apply it to? TB? Diabetes? Cancer? Why just HIV?
Because HIV continues to be, especially among people of a certain age, associated with specific lifestyle choices
If you were to say AIDS And TB yes, cancer and diabetes No, I wonder what the reasoning might be?
Well it could be that you don't like poor people from Africa.
Or it could be that AIDS and TB are communicable
It might be that you don't blame diabetics for failure to control their behaviour but you do blame AIDS victims for the same.
But in essence Farage is blowing a loud dog whistle and then lots of UKIP supporters scurry around trying to prove it wasn't a dog whistle because it wasn't meant to mean what people intepreted it as. But they ignore th fact that most people don't read PB and will just hear the whistle.
(If he had said that new immigrants shouldn't have free access to the NHS for a number of years that would have been entirely respectable. Aiming to restrict immigration by implying that foreigners are sick and nasty is, well, just sick and nasty).
Unusual garbage from you there Charles.
All he had to say in response to the interviewer (nb: haven't listened to the piece but going on what @Socrates said) was "amongst, other diseases, yes, people with HIV should not be allowed to enter"
The problem is that I think Farage is too smart not to know that he has some unpleasant supporters and needs to pander occasionally
Dear Lord, I have just listened to it and anyone taking offence probably could play the lead in The Princess and the Pea
All he said was people with illnesses that are going to cost us a fortune to treat shouldn't be allowed to immigrate here
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
"Ignorance" that is carried out by such noted reactionaries as the Federal Republic of Germany.
This is how Farage introduced HIV:
But Zimbabweans come, to put it bluntly, with the wrong skills, in the wrong colour skin and possibly, given the HIV rates there, in the wrong state of health.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
*snip* Prediction: this affair will not harm Farage one jot. It might possibly aid him. And the more the wanky bien pensants freak out the more he will benefit.
Incidentally is there is nice big spreadsheet or CSV file some where that has a list of every 2010 constituency and their vote breakdowns? I know there are plenty of places to get the numbers, I just wondered if there was one nice unified machine readable version somewhere.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
"Ignorance" that is carried out by such noted reactionaries as the Federal Republic of Germany.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"Ignorance" that is carried out by such noted reactionaries as the Federal Republic of Germany.
This is how Farage introduced HIV:
But Zimbabweans come, to put it bluntly, with the wrong skills, in the wrong colour skin and possibly, given the HIV rates there, in the wrong state of health.
You are quoting the words of the interviewer Robert Chalmers NOT Farage. Read the fecking piece if your are going to quote it! The full quote in context:
Chalmers:
“What worries many people,” I tell him, “is that the current government, unable to curtail EU immigration, seem to be victimising would-be migrants from elsewhere. I think most people who know Harare, say, would feel that any Zimbabwean seeking to come to Britain should be given every encouragement. But Zimbabweans come, to put it bluntly, with the wrong skills, in the wrong colour skin and possibly, given the HIV rates there, in the wrong state of health.”
Farage:
“They are discriminated against because we have an open door into Europe. Today,” he adds, “if you’re an Indian engineer, say, your chances of admission are limited. Ukip want to control the quantity and quality of people who come.”
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
Why isn't the Terrence Higgins Trust ranting about Canada, Germany, Singapore or any of the other one hundred and seventy eight countries which put various restrictions on migrants with HIV?
Are they going to picket the Canadian Embassy?
Absurd. All this posturing over an eminently defensible policy makes the Establishment look even loonier and multicultier.
Prediction: this affair will not harm Farage one jot. It might possibly aid him. And the more the wanky bien pensants freak out the more he will benefit.
This stuff clearly appeals to many voters Labour considers to be 'theirs', hence the result in H & M last night.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
The TH Trust are in danger of missing the point. The issue is whether you should take into account the health (or lack of) of a potential immigrant. Many countries do and HiV is one of those long term conditions which some countries take into account when determining whether or not to grant a visa - as is TB for instance. It's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
As is the position that the NHS is primarily there for those living permanently in this country who have contributed to it not for visitors or those coming here purely to take advantage of its free service.
What is wrong is to equate people with HiV with murderers or to say that someone with HiV is somehow is a lesser human being.
I don't think the 'It's alright we're heading into even more excrement and can't do anything about it' line will work out on the campaign trail
Possibly not.
But people can't have it both ways. They accuse politicians of lying to them, but don't want to hear the truth about the limitations of what can be done and the time it will take to get the country back on track. My view is that we (by which in this context I mean the Conservative Party) should play it straight. The government is doing what it can, held back only slightly by the LibDems in a couple of areas. The record speaks for itself. You can either vote for continuing with that progress, or vote to wreck it. That is the choice. There's no magic wand, as UKIP claim there is, and there's no way of avoiding further difficult decisions in the next parliament, as Labour implicitly claim by their refusal to even begin thinking about such decisions. The rest is up to voters, we just have to trust them.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
Why isn't the Terrence Higgins Trust ranting about Canada, Germany, Singapore
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
Why isn't the Terrence Higgins Trust ranting about Canada, Germany, Singapore
I'm not sure how these comments by Farage will resonate with the electorate quite honestly, the Guardian will hate it of course, but the 'man on the street' who knows?
What I do remember however, was when Labour introduced “Free HIV treatment on NHS for foreign nationals” back in 2012 – it didn’t go done well because of course, the treatment was not free, the UK Tax payers picked up the tab.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
Why isn't the Terrence Higgins Trust ranting about Canada, Germany, Singapore
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
"Ignorance" that is carried out by such noted reactionaries as the Federal Republic of Germany.
This is how Farage introduced HIV:
But Zimbabweans come, to put it bluntly, with the wrong skills, in the wrong colour skin and possibly, given the HIV rates there, in the wrong state of health.
I'm not sure how these comments by Farage will resonate with the electorate quite honestly, the Guardian will hate it of course, but the 'man on the street' who knows?
What I do remember however, was when Labour introduced “Free HIV treatment on NHS for foreign nationals” back in 2012 – it didn’t go done well because of course, the treatment was not free, the UK Tax payers picked up the tab.
1 - It reinforces the impression that UKIP is the home of the bigot 2 - The BBC are going big on the story - which is a clear sign of things to come in terms of the media presentation of UKIP 3 - It is not the story UKIP want on the day they won a by-election.
Will it move votes? Hard to say.
Will it damage the perception of UKIP - almost certainly.
I am sick of hearing politicians say that they are "listening" to me. They aren't. If they were they'd bloody well do something about the matters which worry voters.
Have you considered the possibility that there isn't a lot more they can do, that they are not doing already?
Just a thought, you know. Reality is a hard task mistress. Governments have to face it. Oppositions, and more especially protest parties, don't.
Well, there are things they could do on immigration that they are not doing like, for instance, reintroducing something akin to the primary purpose rule, which would address (in part) the problem of young girls of Asian descent being forced into marriage. It would address both an immigration issue and an integration issue, as well as the double standards imposed on British citizens purely because of where their parents, grand-parents or great-grand-parents came from.
EU rules also currently allow states to prevent the entry of "undesirables" such as the Latvian murderer. But that would involve having an effective Border Force. So that is something which could be done.
There are constraints - but, if so, explain what those constraints are, honestly, rather than take your audience for fools and pretend to be "listening" when you're doing nothing of the kind. But in my view there are lots of small things which could be done but which aren't because, fundamentally, governments either aren't really interested or aren't willing to "sweat the small stuff".
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
"Ignorance" that is carried out by such noted reactionaries as the Federal Republic of Germany.
This is how Farage introduced HIV:
But Zimbabweans come, to put it bluntly, with the wrong skills, in the wrong colour skin and possibly, given the HIV rates there, in the wrong state of health.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
"Ignorance" that is carried out by such noted reactionaries as the Federal Republic of Germany.
This is how Farage introduced HIV:
But Zimbabweans come, to put it bluntly, with the wrong skills, in the wrong colour skin and possibly, given the HIV rates there, in the wrong state of health.
I don't think the 'It's alright we're heading into even more excrement and can't do anything about it' line will work out on the campaign trail
Possibly not.
But people can't have it both ways. They accuse politicians of lying to them, but don't want to hear the truth about the limitations of what can be done and the time it will take to get the country back on track. My view is that we (by which in this context I mean the Conservative Party) should play it straight. The government is doing what it can, held back only slightly by the LibDems in a couple of areas. The record speaks for itself. You can either vote for continuing with that progress, or vote to wreck it. That is the choice. There's no magic wand, as UKIP claim there is, and there's no way of avoiding further difficult decisions in the next parliament, as Labour implicitly claim by their refusal to even begin thinking about such decisions. The rest is up to voters, we just have to trust them.
UKIP do not claim there is a magic wand (that is yet more self justifying delusion from establishment parties that are losing the argument). What UKIP are doing is providing an alternative decentralist approach to addressing the problem. The great deceit of your argument is that it by its nature is self-interested and self-indulgent because it ensures that the political elite cling desperately to every ounce of power there is. Whereas UKIP proposes a redistribution of power and with it a spreading and reduction of the risks entailed in sustaining an over-centralised power intensive establishment structure.
So by all means tell it as it is and while your at it get the likes of Matthew Parris and Ken Clarke to work with Cameron to sell it. They will go down a bundle!
We're all putting a brave face on it but a pretty depressing day for the UK or more particularly England. The most pertinant comment today was "England's just got a whole lot smaller".
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It's the dawning of the age of Socrates.
What a horrible thought
I agree with Roger.. (apart from the dig at another poster)
Time for a break from PB on that bombshell.....
We already stop immigrants with TB from entering the UK. Are you going to start campaigning for them?
I'm no UKIP supporter, but after considering the various sides I think Farage has a valid point (apart from appallingly bracketing murderers and HIV sufferers together).
We have an NHS in this country, not an IHS*. If an immigrant (or health tourist) is going to be a drain on our indebted and overloaded health service, we need to protect the NHS.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
Why isn't the Terrence Higgins Trust ranting about Canada, Germany, Singapore
I'm not sure how these comments by Farage will resonate with the electorate quite honestly, the Guardian will hate it of course, but the 'man on the street' who knows?
What I do remember however, was when Labour introduced “Free HIV treatment on NHS for foreign nationals” back in 2012 – it didn’t go done well because of course, the treatment was not free, the UK Tax payers picked up the tab.
1 - It reinforces the impression that UKIP is the home of the bigot 2 - The BBC are going big on the story - which is a clear sign of things to come in terms of the media presentation of UKIP 3 - It is not the story UKIP want on the day they won a by-election.
Will it move votes? Hard to say.
Will it damage the perception of UKIP - almost certainly.
There speaks an urban liberal. I've been listening to the TV news on both sides all day and its having virtually no impact. It pales into insignificance in comparison to the coverage of UKIP scaring the crap out of Labour and giving the Eton Trifles a sound beating!
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
"Ignorance" that is carried out by such noted reactionaries as the Federal Republic of Germany.
This is how Farage introduced HIV:
But Zimbabweans come, to put it bluntly, with the wrong skills, in the wrong colour skin and possibly, given the HIV rates there, in the wrong state of health.
Are you sure it isn't the interviewer saying that ?
So you're a BIG FAT STUPID LIAR.
Well done. You're so hysterically desperate to smear Farage you made yourself look a fool. You are embarrassing. I suggest you shut the F up.
And you're evidently drunk.
Again.
Pathetic fail.
I don't much like Farage, but I have never seen a more effective heffalump trap, nor laughed so much at the sight of reds n blues vying to fall into it like this.
We're all putting a brave face on it but a pretty depressing day for the UK or more particularly England. The most pertinant comment today was "England's just got a whole lot smaller".
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It's the dawning of the age of Socrates.
What a horrible thought
I agree with Roger.. (apart from the dig at another poster)
Time for a break from PB on that bombshell.....
We already stop immigrants with TB from entering the UK. Are you going to start campaigning for them?
If not: BIGOT!
It must be because they've got the wrong colour skin.
The ridiculous thing about this is that it was an old interview, in which the interviewer deliberately selected one inflammatory disease out of many, and deliberately released on the day of UKIP's big win. There is genuinely a media conspiracy against UKIP.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
""In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
"Ignorance" that is carried out by such noted reactionaries as the Federal Republic of Germany.
This is how Farage introduced HIV:
But Zimbabweans come, to put it bluntly, with the wrong skills, in the wrong colour skin and possibly, given the HIV rates there, in the wrong state of health.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
Why isn't the Terrence Higgins Trust ranting about Canada, Germany, Singapore
3 - It is not the story UKIP want on the day they won a by-election.
Well, since the Establishment are responding to it in exactly the same manner they've treated UKIP stories for the last few years, I can't see it doing them much harm. That said, Carswell is obviously uncomfortable with the tone [and Farage was a bit clumsy], which might presage some issues.
There really isn't a progressive majority out there in favour of encouraging HIV-positive immigrants.
Anthony is of course absolutely right to remind us why by elections are a strange animal. I've heard much about how the combined results showed a swing from LAB to CON of 7.6%. Applied nationally, the changes in those combined results would put Labour 8 points ahead of the Conservatives. But it would also show UKIP on 51% and heading for a landslide next May...
Last night I tweeted that I wouldn't be staying up because:
twitter.com/NCruncherUK/status/520263516012675072
In the event, I did stay up and we got all three.
In H&M, the Labour share was 8 points lower and UKIP 8 points higher than the polls had it:
That is huge. In the 1992 general election, the overall error in opinion polling was something in the order of 9 points - this is roughly double that. Why were the pollsters fairly accurate in one contest between UKIP and a 'big two' party, but the same two pollsters so wrong in another? It is possible that there might be a Carswell effect, a turnout effect, or maybe a difference in sampling bias between these two equal and opposite seats. More on polling to follow.
For the anoraks: The swing Douglas Carswell achieved from himself (in different colours) was 44.1%. This is, of course, astonishing, but Simon Hughes, who was a Sky News Pundit last night, holds on to his 1983 record swing of 44.2% - Carswell would have needed just 112 more votes to beat it. He should have demanded a recount!
I'm currently writing a detailed piece on polling, to be published soon.
The Times published a Manchester grooming piece on 5 October. That might have contributed to a late Lab>UKIP swing.
Whereas UKIP proposes a redistribution of power and with it a spreading and reduction of the risks entailed in sustaining an over-centralised power intensive establishment structure.
Really?
What are the policies they are proposing to achieve this?
I'm not sure how these comments by Farage will resonate with the electorate quite honestly, the Guardian will hate it of course, but the 'man on the street' who knows?
What I do remember however, was when Labour introduced “Free HIV treatment on NHS for foreign nationals” back in 2012 – it didn’t go done well because of course, the treatment was not free, the UK Tax payers picked up the tab.
I'm not sure how these comments by Farage will resonate with the electorate quite honestly, the Guardian will hate it of course, but the 'man on the street' who knows?
What I do remember however, was when Labour introduced “Free HIV treatment on NHS for foreign nationals” back in 2012 – it didn’t go done well because of course, the treatment was not free, the UK Tax payers picked up the tab.
1 - It reinforces the impression that UKIP is the home of the bigot 2 - The BBC are going big on the story - which is a clear sign of things to come in terms of the media presentation of UKIP 3 - It is not the story UKIP want on the day they won a by-election.
Will it move votes? Hard to say.
Will it damage the perception of UKIP - almost certainly.
My earlier point was based entirely around the effect on votes and agree, it's very hard to call - Kippers have made some very odd comments in the past, but for every outraged citizen, there appears to be an equally sympathetic ear and then some, otherwise they wouldn't be where they are today.
3 - It is not the story UKIP want on the day they won a by-election.
Well, since the Establishment are responding to it in exactly the same manner they've treated UKIP stories for the last few years, I can't see it doing them much harm. That said, Carswell is obviously uncomfortable with the tone [and Farage was a bit clumsy], which might presage some issues.
There really isn't a progressive majority out there in favour of encouraging HIV-positive immigrants.
No.
But Farage handled it badly - with open discomfort from Carswell - and turned the news cycle into one about UKIP and bigotry - rather than UKIP winning a by-election and nearly winning a second.
It is not the day that Farage wanted.
At the end of the day, it highlights the fact that UKIP have not got a secure policy platform on a whole raft of issues. And the media will delight in picking up every small gap between Farage and Carswell. That does not bode well for them.
Since things have got a little heated, here's a story that may bring a chuckle: a man's been jailed for eight months for "being master of a hovercraft having consumed excess alcohol."
3 - It is not the story UKIP want on the day they won a by-election.
Well, since the Establishment are responding to it in exactly the same manner they've treated UKIP stories for the last few years, I can't see it doing them much harm. That said, Carswell is obviously uncomfortable with the tone [and Farage was a bit clumsy], which might presage some issues.
There really isn't a progressive majority out there in favour of encouraging HIV-positive immigrants.
No.
But Farage handled it badly - with open discomfort from Carswell - and turned the news cycle into one about UKIP and bigotry - rather than UKIP winning a by-election and nearly winning a second.
It is not the day that Farage wanted.
At the end of the day, it highlights the fact that UKIP have not got a secure policy platform on a whole raft of issues. And the media will delight in picking up every small gap between Farage and Carswell. That does not bode well for them.
I think its a news cycle about TV journos desperate for an anti-UKIP angle.
3 - It is not the story UKIP want on the day they won a by-election.
Well, since the Establishment are responding to it in exactly the same manner they've treated UKIP stories for the last few years, I can't see it doing them much harm. That said, Carswell is obviously uncomfortable with the tone [and Farage was a bit clumsy], which might presage some issues.
There really isn't a progressive majority out there in favour of encouraging HIV-positive immigrants.
No.
But Farage handled it badly - with open discomfort from Carswell - and turned the news cycle into one about UKIP and bigotry - rather than UKIP winning a by-election and nearly winning a second.
It is not the day that Farage wanted.
At the end of the day, it highlights the fact that UKIP have not got a secure policy platform on a whole raft of issues. And the media will delight in picking up every small gap between Farage and Carswell. That does not bode well for them.
I think Carswell is smart enough to keep things on an even keel until the election. It may well have been a blessing in disguise for UKIP that they didn't win H&M, though, as the contrast between Carswell & Bickley might have been irresistible.
I'm not sure how these comments by Farage will resonate with the electorate quite honestly, the Guardian will hate it of course, but the 'man on the street' who knows?
What I do remember however, was when Labour introduced “Free HIV treatment on NHS for foreign nationals” back in 2012 – it didn’t go done well because of course, the treatment was not free, the UK Tax payers picked up the tab.
The clear conclusion from last night's results is that UKIP are the creation of the Establishment .Led by a banker,with an MP who wants to turn the NHS into Tescos and with the positive support of the BBC,UKIP are a creature of the British Establishment for sure.
I am sick of hearing politicians say that they are "listening" to me. They aren't. If they were they'd bloody well do something about the matters which worry voters.
Have you considered the possibility that there isn't a lot more they can do, that they are not doing already?
Just a thought, you know. Reality is a hard task mistress. Governments have to face it. Oppositions, and more especially protest parties, don't.
Well, there are things they could do on immigration that they are not doing like, for instance, reintroducing something akin to the primary purpose rule, which would address (in part) the problem of young girls of Asian descent being forced into marriage. It would address both an immigration issue and an integration issue, as well as the double standards imposed on British citizens purely because of where their parents, grand-parents or great-grand-parents came from.
EU rules also currently allow states to prevent the entry of "undesirables" such as the Latvian murderer. But that would involve having an effective Border Force. So that is something which could be done.
There are constraints - but, if so, explain what those constraints are, honestly, rather than take your audience for fools and pretend to be "listening" when you're doing nothing of the kind. But in my view there are lots of small things which could be done but which aren't because, fundamentally, governments either aren't really interested or aren't willing to "sweat the small stuff".
Tensions between Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell were highlighted on Friday when the newly elected Ukip MP declined to offer a specific endorsement of his leader’s call for a ban on migrants with HIV from entering the UK......
Carswell, who used his acceptance speech to call for Ukip to be a tolerant party, said he agreed with Farage but declined to say whether he supported the specific proposal for a ban on people with HIV.
We've had thread after thread on his polls. Yet, they don't appear to be any better than pinning the tail on a donkey blindfold, after several 360's and a copious amount of SeanT Shiraz.
Didn't Roy Hattersley say recently - as MP for SparkBrooke - that he had many constituents worried about immigration, to these he had to "dissemble", until he had a 88% immigrant constituency and he could relax.
What ever the merits of his argument - this is lousy news management.
What you seem unable to comprehend, and this is why UKIP are so successful at the moment, is that many people see those headlines and think "Bloody right as well"
I see that this afternoon's thread is generating more heat than light. Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Tensions between Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell were highlighted on Friday when the newly elected Ukip MP declined to offer a specific endorsement of his leader’s call for a ban on migrants with HIV from entering the UK......
Carswell, who used his acceptance speech to call for Ukip to be a tolerant party, said he agreed with Farage but declined to say whether he supported the specific proposal for a ban on people with HIV.
Ed Miliband has to go. Labour’s near-defeat in the safe seat of Heywood confirms that he doesn’t have the charisma even to energise the party’s core vote. The demise of the Left under his leadership is agonising to watch. I ceased being a member of Labour a few years ago, but I still feel angry about the mistakes being made. It’s a bit like driving past an old house that you once loved and seeing that the new owners have ruined it with bad taste.
What ever the merits of his argument - this is lousy news management.
What you seem unable to comprehend, and this is why UKIP are so successful at the moment, is that many people see those headlines and think "Bloody right as well"
Are you seriously arguing that Farage wanted this story in the news today?
Tensions between Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell were highlighted on Friday when the newly elected Ukip MP declined to offer a specific endorsement of his leader’s call for a ban on migrants with HIV from entering the UK......
Carswell, who used his acceptance speech to call for Ukip to be a tolerant party, said he agreed with Farage but declined to say whether he supported the specific proposal for a ban on people with HIV.
I'm not sure how these comments by Farage will resonate with the electorate quite honestly, the Guardian will hate it of course, but the 'man on the street' who knows?
What I do remember however, was when Labour introduced “Free HIV treatment on NHS for foreign nationals” back in 2012 – it didn’t go done well because of course, the treatment was not free, the UK Tax payers picked up the tab.
1 - It reinforces the impression that UKIP is the home of the bigot 2 - The BBC are going big on the story - which is a clear sign of things to come in terms of the media presentation of UKIP 3 - It is not the story UKIP want on the day they won a by-election.
Will it move votes? Hard to say.
Will it damage the perception of UKIP - almost certainly.
It will reinforce stereotypes for the metropolitan elite - only racists vote UKIP. And that includes the BBC. Most of the electorate will think it a reasonable proposal, indeed some will wonder why it does not happen at the moment.
Briskin and co - Live Friday night analysis 1700 BST
1 - Cameron (DC, Camo) - plays five-a-side football
2 - Ed M (Ed is crap, David Milliband's brother, Milliband) - has the ability to eat a bacon butty (bacon sandwich) - secular jewish - Commie family heritage - policy wonkish (Guido attributed this to his brother)
3 - Clegg - "has the ability to wear appropriate attire" (Bbc)
The reaction to Farage/HIV shows that the establishment stilldon't get it. Yes it would be nice and compassionate to let such people in and fund their lifelong NHS treatment through other people's taxes.
However people struggling to make ends meet, who see their meagre wages docked tax, pay £8 for a prescription, who's kids have to take a £9k loan to pay tuition fees and see their cousins bled white to contribute to the means tested care home fees of an elderly relation with dementia that the NHS won't pay for, despite them paying taxes all their life, may not see it that way and are enraged at the idea.
Farage is realistic and realism isn't fluffy and nice. Realism is look after family, friends and nation first in that order. Then and only then if there is money leftover for charity to Auslanders.
What ever the merits of his argument - this is lousy news management.
What you seem unable to comprehend, and this is why UKIP are so successful at the moment, is that many people see those headlines and think "Bloody right as well"
Are you seriously arguing that Farage wanted this story in the news today?
Just accept that people you don't like are popular at the moment, one day it will be your turn again.
Whereas UKIP proposes a redistribution of power and with it a spreading and reduction of the risks entailed in sustaining an over-centralised power intensive establishment structure.
Really?
What are the policies they are proposing to achieve this?
Well firstly withdrawal from the EU will be the greatest redistribution of power experienced in this country in decades. Federalisation of the UK, with the abolition of the House of Lords and the provision potentially of an English Parliament. The redistribution of centralised public sector functions such as Monitor and the CQC to counties, allowing schools to convert to Grammar schools if they wish, the introduction of direct democracy into the planning system, the introduction of MP's recall and the introduction of Citizen's Initiative's for future referenda and the abolition of Government departments such as DCMS and Climate Change & Energy with the inherent reduction in control that that implies.
Those are the ones I recall and that have been highlighted so far. I'm sure there will be other areas down the line.
Of course the biggest by far is the withdrawal of the EU because then the UK can decide for itself what its policies will be.
Haven't really followed the HIV story but if even I think Farage has a point you can be fairly sure a large swathe to my right think it. Why should we let HIV+ people into the UK to drain taxpayers's money and probably infect people here? Am I missing something?
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
What ever the merits of his argument - this is lousy news management.
What you seem unable to comprehend, and this is why UKIP are so successful at the moment, is that many people see those headlines and think "Bloody right as well"
Are you seriously arguing that Farage wanted this story in the news today?
I don't think he minds particularly either way. But it's true that the anti-UKIP web in the media thought it would damage him. LBC Radio deliberately asks it as an inflammatory question, they release it on the day of a UKIP win, and then Michael Crick is there for the BBC to get it on the news. Given the Tories recent work with the Guardian on these sort of attacks, it could well have been CCHQ that fed LBC the question.
Anyway, good on Farage for answered a manipulative question honestly. I don't give a damn about what the chattering classes say. It seems an entirely sensible public health policy, and one that protects taxpayer money.
What ever the merits of his argument - this is lousy news management.
What you seem unable to comprehend, and this is why UKIP are so successful at the moment, is that many people see those headlines and think "Bloody right as well"
Are you seriously arguing that Farage wanted this story in the news today?
Just accept that people you don't like are popular at the moment, one day it will be your turn again.
Just accept that the UKIP 'good news' bandwagon has hit a rut in the road and Farage blundered into a trap set by a journalist....
I see that this afternoon's thread is generating more heat than light. Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
The UK has TB tests for Visa applicants. Why would one for HIV be any more problematic?
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
What ever the merits of his argument - this is lousy news management.
What you seem unable to comprehend, and this is why UKIP are so successful at the moment, is that many people see those headlines and think "Bloody right as well"
Are you seriously arguing that Farage wanted this story in the news today?
Michael Crick is there for the BBC to get it on the news.
You're getting your conspiracy muddled....Crick works for Ch4......
I see that this afternoon's thread is generating more heat than light. Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Canada has mandatory HIV tests for migrants. Frankly, I am amazed that we do NOT (I presumed we did already; it seems like common sense to know what longterm health requirements a new Brit will need, even if you are going to let them in).
I believe millions will feel like me.
Probably against EU and human rights law ^^;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
What ever the merits of his argument - this is lousy news management.
What you seem unable to comprehend, and this is why UKIP are so successful at the moment, is that many people see those headlines and think "Bloody right as well"
Are you seriously arguing that Farage wanted this story in the news today?
Just accept that people you don't like are popular at the moment, one day it will be your turn again.
Just accept that the UKIP 'good news' bandwagon has hit a rut in the road and Farage blundered into a trap set by a journalist....
I'm listening to the 5 O'Clock news on the BBC and there is yet not a mention of HIV and the only thing they have talked about is UKIP. Sadly its only of real importance in the surreal deluded minds of sad little Guardianistas. Those ruts are just another feature of Guardianistas warped minds. As their rapidly declining circulation and financial situation demonstrates the Guardian is not the centre of the media universe
What ever the merits of his argument - this is lousy news management.
What you seem unable to comprehend, and this is why UKIP are so successful at the moment, is that many people see those headlines and think "Bloody right as well"
Are you seriously arguing that Farage wanted this story in the news today?
Michael Crick is there for the BBC to get it on the news.
You're getting your conspiracy muddled....Crick works for Ch4......
And lives with Lucy Hetherington a full-blown liberati BBC leftie of the most awkward kind
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You seem to be confusing tourism with immigration. As others have pointed out, other country test for HIV, and we test visa applicants for TB. The policy is plausible [unlike the Ebola charade].
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
That is deliberately mudding the waters. I don't think anybody would suggest such nonsense, but on the other hand lots of countries ask those who apply for the likes of work visas to undergo a full medical.
I see that this afternoon's thread is generating more heat than light. Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Canada has mandatory HIV tests for migrants. Frankly, I am amazed that we do NOT (I presumed we did already; it seems like common sense to know what longterm health requirements a new Brit will need, even if you are going to let them in).
I believe millions will feel like me.
How can we have tests for anything when we do not control immigration at all? Just look at the farce that goes on in Dover and the other Ferry ports every day.
Comments
I'm scratching my head as to why I only have £10 on the SNP in Gordon at 5-4 however !
Though the £10 in Dunbartonshire East at 50-1 is probably my best bet value wise in the portfolio.
That suggests a fairly hefty shy Labour to UKIP vote. If that's replicated at the General Election there could be some very odd results.
Give it a go, you'd beat the Lib Dems that is for certain.
Time for a break from PB on that bombshell.....
UKIP voters under 55 38%
UKIP voters 55 and over 62%
Tory voters under 55 38%
Tory voters 55 and over 62%
We do this already with TB. Why is HIV privileged? Is it a vital ingredient of a vibrant multi-cultural Britain in a way TB isn't? If so, isn't that a bit virusist?
The problem is that I think Farage is too smart not to know that he has some unpleasant supporters and needs to pander occasionally
But Zimbabweans come, to put it bluntly, with the wrong skills, in the wrong colour skin and possibly, given the HIV rates there, in the wrong state of health.
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/17/inside-maverick-mind-nigel-farage-276175.html
'the wrong colour skin'? What ever could he mean?
EDIT: As pointed out by the Pulpstar and isam, it was the interviewer who said that.
All he said was people with illnesses that are going to cost us a fortune to treat shouldn't be allowed to immigrate here
Chalmers:
“What worries many people,” I tell him, “is that the current government, unable to curtail EU immigration, seem to be victimising would-be migrants from elsewhere. I think most people who know Harare, say, would feel that any Zimbabwean seeking to come to Britain should be given every encouragement. But Zimbabweans come, to put it bluntly, with the wrong skills, in the wrong colour skin and possibly, given the HIV rates there, in the wrong state of health.”
Farage:
“They are discriminated against because we have an open door into Europe. Today,” he adds, “if you’re an Indian engineer, say, your chances of admission are limited. Ukip want to control the quantity and quality of people who come.”
http://boi.gov.in/content/health-regulation
As is the position that the NHS is primarily there for those living permanently in this country who have contributed to it not for visitors or those coming here purely to take advantage of its free service.
What is wrong is to equate people with HiV with murderers or to say that someone with HiV is somehow is a lesser human being.
But people can't have it both ways. They accuse politicians of lying to them, but don't want to hear the truth about the limitations of what can be done and the time it will take to get the country back on track. My view is that we (by which in this context I mean the Conservative Party) should play it straight. The government is doing what it can, held back only slightly by the LibDems in a couple of areas. The record speaks for itself. You can either vote for continuing with that progress, or vote to wreck it. That is the choice. There's no magic wand, as UKIP claim there is, and there's no way of avoiding further difficult decisions in the next parliament, as Labour implicitly claim by their refusal to even begin thinking about such decisions. The rest is up to voters, we just have to trust them.
http://www.hivtravel.org/Default.aspx?PageId=143&CountryId=74
Canada also does not stop refugees (presumably like Mr Farage's 'wrong colour skin' Zimbabwean) with HIV from settling:
http://www.hivtravel.org/Default.aspx?PageId=143&CountryId=39
The UK, rightly in my view, treats this as a public health issue.
hahahahahaha keep going, keep going
What I do remember however, was when Labour introduced “Free HIV treatment on NHS for foreign nationals” back in 2012 – it didn’t go done well because of course, the treatment was not free, the UK Tax payers picked up the tab.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17187179
1) Farage didn't say that, the interviewer did
2) He actually supports the long-held UK stance of accepting refugees in the same article
On the broader point, he is still wrong about HIV - and in a sense, walked into the interviewers trap.....
1 - It reinforces the impression that UKIP is the home of the bigot
2 - The BBC are going big on the story - which is a clear sign of things to come in terms of the media presentation of UKIP
3 - It is not the story UKIP want on the day they won a by-election.
Will it move votes? Hard to say.
Will it damage the perception of UKIP - almost certainly.
EU rules also currently allow states to prevent the entry of "undesirables" such as the Latvian murderer. But that would involve having an effective Border Force. So that is something which could be done.
There are constraints - but, if so, explain what those constraints are, honestly, rather than take your audience for fools and pretend to be "listening" when you're doing nothing of the kind. But in my view there are lots of small things which could be done but which aren't because, fundamentally, governments either aren't really interested or aren't willing to "sweat the small stuff".
brutal stuff from Guido
http://order-order.com/2014/10/10/if-the-tories-lose-in-2015-blame-cooper-not-farage/
Cooper was a co-founder of Populus.
He also provided Conservatives with the "nasty" label.
Again.
So by all means tell it as it is and while your at it get the likes of Matthew Parris and Ken Clarke to work with Cameron to sell it. They will go down a bundle!
If not: BIGOT!
We have an NHS in this country, not an IHS*. If an immigrant (or health tourist) is going to be a drain on our indebted and overloaded health service, we need to protect the NHS.
* International Health Service.
I don't much like Farage, but I have never seen a more effective heffalump trap, nor laughed so much at the sight of reds n blues vying to fall into it like this.
The ridiculous thing about this is that it was an old interview, in which the interviewer deliberately selected one inflammatory disease out of many, and deliberately released on the day of UKIP's big win. There is genuinely a media conspiracy against UKIP.
There really isn't a progressive majority out there in favour of encouraging HIV-positive immigrants.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1467319.ece
Lord Ashcroft says he's going to write an article for the weekend. Perhaps he'll do a call-back poll for that?
What are the policies they are proposing to achieve this?
But Farage handled it badly - with open discomfort from Carswell - and turned the news cycle into one about UKIP and bigotry - rather than UKIP winning a by-election and nearly winning a second.
It is not the day that Farage wanted.
At the end of the day, it highlights the fact that UKIP have not got a secure policy platform on a whole raft of issues. And the media will delight in picking up every small gap between Farage and Carswell. That does not bode well for them.
Since things have got a little heated, here's a story that may bring a chuckle: a man's been jailed for eight months for "being master of a hovercraft having consumed excess alcohol."
Try explaining that to the other inmates ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-29566304
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/oct/10/hiv-positive-woman-nigel-farage-ukip-video
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/10/nigel-farage-defends-plan-immigrants-hiv-nhs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11153107/Nigel-Farage-Ban-migrants-with-HIV-from-entering-Britain.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-condemned-for-calling-for-ban-on-hivpositive-migrants-coming-to-the-uk-9786376.html
What ever the merits of his argument - this is lousy news management.
– UKIP will reinstate the primary purpose rule for bringing foreign spouses and children to the UK.
Tensions between Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell were highlighted on Friday when the newly elected Ukip MP declined to offer a specific endorsement of his leader’s call for a ban on migrants with HIV from entering the UK......
Carswell, who used his acceptance speech to call for Ukip to be a tolerant party, said he agreed with Farage but declined to say whether he supported the specific proposal for a ban on people with HIV.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/10/douglas-carswell-ukip-plans-migrants-hiv
http://order-order.com/2014/10/10/ashcroft-polls-margin-of-error-was-17/
We've had thread after thread on his polls. Yet, they don't appear to be any better than pinning the tail on a donkey blindfold, after several 360's and a copious amount of SeanT Shiraz.
Can them.
It will reinforce stereotypes for the metropolitan elite - only racists vote UKIP. And that includes the BBC.
Most of the electorate will think it a reasonable proposal, indeed some will wonder why it does not happen at the moment.
1 - Cameron (DC, Camo) - plays five-a-side football
2 - Ed M (Ed is crap, David Milliband's brother, Milliband) - has the ability to eat a bacon butty (bacon sandwich) - secular jewish - Commie family heritage - policy wonkish (Guido attributed this to his brother)
3 - Clegg - "has the ability to wear appropriate attire" (Bbc)
However people struggling to make ends meet, who see their meagre wages docked tax, pay £8 for a prescription, who's kids have to take a £9k loan to pay tuition fees and see their cousins bled white to contribute to the means tested care home fees of an elderly relation with dementia that the NHS won't pay for, despite them paying taxes all their life, may not see it that way and are enraged at the idea.
Farage is realistic and realism isn't fluffy and nice. Realism is look after family, friends and nation first in that order. Then and only then if there is money leftover for charity to Auslanders.
Those are the ones I recall and that have been highlighted so far. I'm sure there will be other areas down the line.
Of course the biggest by far is the withdrawal of the EU because then the UK can decide for itself what its policies will be.
"Should we allow people with contagious incurable diseases to immigrate to the UK, and access NHS treatment for free"
NO would win 4 to 1, maybe more easily than that
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV
No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/10/hiv-uk-border-barriers-nigel-farage-ukip-secrecy-analysis
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
Anyway, good on Farage for answered a manipulative question honestly. I don't give a damn about what the chattering classes say. It seems an entirely sensible public health policy, and one that protects taxpayer money.
https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/overview
(That is to say, very silly).