I think the man (Farage) speaks sense, I also think the vast majority agree with a lot of what he says!.........what cant you agree with??..........or understand??......and yes I will be voting for him!
Because he is a racist, arrogant, slimey wannabe.
Sadiejane is a keen supporter of diversity (the political concept, her feelings on the dance group are at this time unknown.) However I find it odd that as soon as she encounters any views or opinions that she disagrees with, she hits back with the most intolerant abusive and nasty comments.
Surely this is exactly behaviour you should discourage if you are so keen on diversity.
Brown promised British Jobs for British workers (fail) Cameron promised net immigration in the "tens of thousands" (fail)
Net immigration in 2014 was +190,000 from EU countries and +110,000 from the rest.
Where are these people going to live? What is the impact on school capacity, the welfare system, and the NHS ? Shall we build on green belt/farmland - and/or reduce our farming output? How will we cope with the next water shortage ? How many more car wash staff or leaflet distributors does the UK need ? What is the impact on the transport system / car pollution
This is the real issue = HEADCOUNT, not race/religion/ethnicity and it's gets clouded by debates about how many UKIP racists it takes to change a light bulb.
Quite simply - there is not enough room in UK for the current population trend to continue, so which party is going to address it and how ?
UKIP should just cut to the chase and state that it will only allow foreigners to live and work here if they earn at least £25-30k/year. We've got a massive problem with unemployment in the younger generations and opening up millions of entry level jobs to our own citizens is going to save a world of social unrest in the future. It would drastically reduce our benefits bill and give aspiration to those who lots of people sneer at as 'chavs'. UKIP have a problem with being seen as old, posh and bigoted, if they proposed a ban on foreigners competing for entry level jobs they'd be massively more appealing to the young than Labour and their £3k off tuition or the Tories who seem to offer nothing but austerity and higher house prices. If Farage offers this clearly he could sew up a huge demographic that hasn't previously voted and cause chaos in the next election.
This is the real issue = HEADCOUNT, not race/religion/ethnicity and it's gets clouded by debates about how many UKIP racists it takes to change a light bulb.
Quite simply - there is not enough room in UK for the current population trend to continue, so which party is going to address it and how ?
Nope, the real issue is demographic distribution. The baby boomer generation started retiring about 9 years ago, and given the increase in life expectancy and drop in the birth-rate to those born in the UK, without immigration we're going to suffer major skills shortages as well as have to massively increase the taxes levied on the dwindling working population in order to fund their pensions, their social care and their healthcare. Unfortunately, the chances of any politicians putting in place policies that'll do the long-term restructuring needed to deal with these demographic changes are small, cos they're likely to be unpopular.
Skills shortages in what sectors?
Not sure those that are coming are bringing any specific skill that we need - but it could well be the case.
If we needed 300,000 people to come in 2014 due to skill shortages then we are in big trouble already.
Nobody thought UKIP were a racist party before they became mainstream. They were seen as an opposition to the European Union and I think a lot of people sympathised with their arguments.
Now they have become somewhat of a threat, they are subject to firetrucks of bile being sprayed at them by other parties who are significantly better resourced. The Farage comments about the race relations act have been taken so far out of context that it actually really annoys me. The worst thing is, is that the lefties just swallow it up!
actually, a fair few people have always considered UKIP as racist, but until recently they were a small party on the sidelines. But, as you rightly point out, they are now a potential threat and so have come under greater scrutiny.
You describe it as bile, but the attacks on UKIP are no different than any of the other parties attacking each other, or the press having a go at the parties they don't like. That is how politics and democracy works. UKIP are playing the game of being the underdogs and everything is unfair. That view can only go so far, and like anybody putting themselves up for election, are fair game
In my view, their problem is that other than the "I don't like Europe and people who are not me" line, they haven't got any properly worked out policies, and whenever they announce something, they are hurriedly changing it due to it not being properly thought out. I can find some populist they have made, but cannot find any properly worked out policies on the economy, health, education, security and defence, and so on. All the other main parties have these, worked out, costed, and delivery plan. You might disagree with the figures or sentiment, but they are there for scrutiny. UKIP just don't have these. If they really want to be in power they need to explain in detail what they propose to do in all areas of government, not just the bit that is their shtick.
The current UKIP position is that they are deliberately holding back their manifesto. You have to ask why that is. Internally they have a real problem that they have come together over time as a rag bag of people who have focused on a single issue. Now they are being asked about what they would do in other areas, my guess is that they are struggling to get agreement.
Beyond that, Farage is a good example of an insider pretending to be on the outside. He has done a good job of tapping into a popular view, but the reality is that he has no interest in many of the people who are currently supporting him. His views are pretty standard libertarian right wing agenda, limited legislation, little tax, no support in terms of benefits, privatise everything. These are not things that will help his current core vote.
This is the real issue = HEADCOUNT, not race/religion/ethnicity and it's gets clouded by debates about how many UKIP racists it takes to change a light bulb.
Quite simply - there is not enough room in UK for the current population trend to continue, so which party is going to address it and how ?
Nope, the real issue is demographic distribution. The baby boomer generation started retiring about 9 years ago, and given the increase in life expectancy and drop in the birth-rate to those born in the UK, without immigration we're going to suffer major skills shortages as well as have to massively increase the taxes levied on the dwindling working population in order to fund their pensions, their social care and their healthcare. Unfortunately, the chances of any politicians putting in place policies that'll do the long-term restructuring needed to deal with these demographic changes are small, cos they're likely to be unpopular.
Skills shortages in what sectors?
Not sure those that are coming are bringing any specific skill that we need - but it could well be the case.
If we needed 300,000 people to come in 2014 due to skill shortages then we are in big trouble already.
UKIP go on about an overcrowded Britain, but the problem that needs to be addressed is an overcrowded world. People risk death, and die, going on craft of all kinds from North Africa into Italy. They take those risks for a serious reason, not for a jolly up. UKIP want to build a fence around the country, but I'm afraid that the rest of the world will still be there even if they do.
UKIP should just cut to the chase and state that it will only allow foreigners to live and work here if they earn at least £25-30k/year. We've got a massive problem with unemployment in the younger generations and opening up millions of entry level jobs to our own citizens is going to save a world of social unrest in the future. It would drastically reduce our benefits bill and give aspiration to those who lots of people sneer at as 'chavs'. UKIP have a problem with being seen as old, posh and bigoted, if they proposed a ban on foreigners competing for entry level jobs they'd be massively more appealing to the young than Labour and their £3k off tuition or the Tories who seem to offer nothing but austerity and higher house prices. If Farage offers this clearly he could sew up a huge demographic that hasn't previously voted and cause chaos in the next election.
Perhaps the solution to large scale unemployment in the under 24's would be to reverse the ridiculous trend of increasing the retirement age.
Can anyone that supports this ludicrous policy really see 67+ year old's being able to cope with the rigours of heavy manual labour. Of course there will be exceptions but in general ?
Unable to continue in their jobs because it's too hard they will be forced to seek benefit at a higher cost than had they been retired at 65.
Do we really see any benefit in clogging up the workplace with an ageing workforce that already have their homes, cars and comforts and who spend little in comparison to those unable to find work aged 24 and under who would drive the economy by looking to spend on that which their elders already have.
UKIP go on about an overcrowded Britain, but the problem that needs to be addressed is an overcrowded world. People risk death, and die, going on craft of all kinds from North Africa into Italy. They take those risks for a serious reason, not for a jolly up. UKIP want to build a fence around the country, but I'm afraid that the rest of the world will still be there even if they do.
the 160+ countries outside the EU seem to manage it?
Manage what? To build a fence around themselves? I am afraid none of them manage to do so because we are all interdependent on the world's resources, indeed we all breath the same air (what's left of it) and the same sun gives all of us solar power if we can harness it. I can't think of one country on Planet Earth that is totally self sufficient and is not obliged to interact with the rest of humanity.
I appreciate we're all dependent upon each other, that's great. We shall continue to trade with the world like we've done for hundreds of years. We don't need to exacerbate the social problems and the physical limitations of the infrastructure in the UK by having an open door to whole of the EU though. That's a nonsensical point of view.
Manage what? To build a fence around themselves? I am afraid none of them manage to do so because we are all interdependent on the world's resources, indeed we all breath the same air (what's left of it) and the same sun gives all of us solar power if we can harness it. I can't think of one country on Planet Earth that is totally self sufficient and is not obliged to interact with the rest of humanity.
Who's ever argued that? Really has anybody ever hinted that the end game is to wall ourselves off from the world? That's the most ridiculous strawman argument I've heard for a long time.
Have I said the UK should have an open door to the rest of the EU? I believe I am saying the problem is about world resources. The 'we' you talk of, I suppose meaning the UK, has a different meaning for me. By that I suppose I think that ultimately when UKIP make the tightest of rules then my wife and son will be threatened because they are not white British, or at the very least could be described as not having 'British Values' as defined by UKIP.
Many people who are not racists will agree with many of Farage's policies because it addresses genuine concerns. Many people who are racist will support Farage because of a genuine racists belief and hatred of immigrants.
It's easy to accuse UKIP of being a racist party because they undeniably have closet racists in their ranks. But it does not follow that the motives of Farage are racist nor that an immigration policy cannot be exercised by non-racist main stream parties.
The knee jerk cries of "racist" from the left help project their feigned monopoly of concern for humanity, in reality it is simply preventing the mainstream politicians from adopting rational policies to protect the interests of everyone living in this country. It is nothing to do with protecting the interests of any certain section of society or stigmatising any section of society, it is about planning and resources.
Net migration was negative in 1994, it is now averaging 200,000 a year. If everyone was spread evenly between John O Groats and Lands End it would not be a problem. It isn't, and anyone who pretends it is not a problem is just spouting socialist dogma at the expense of any rational thinking. The Labour policy of open door borders and unrestricted immigration was evidence of a policy pursued in the interests of a political persona where rational decisions are secondary to maintaining a desired image.
Shouting "racist" is part of the image thing to prove you are proper socialist, just as it's a Labour image thing to try and sound like you grew up in Hackney so you can't be mistaken for the privileged enemy. Socialism is 90% image and proving you are a socialist, and 10% doing anything.
Stop worrying about UKIP as a party, acknowledge a degree of validity of much of what that are saying, and do something.
Manage what? To build a fence around themselves? I am afraid none of them manage to do so because we are all interdependent on the world's resources, indeed we all breath the same air (what's left of it) and the same sun gives all of us solar power if we can harness it. I can't think of one country on Planet Earth that is totally self sufficient and is not obliged to interact with the rest of humanity.
Who's ever argued that? Really has anybody ever hinted that the end game is to wall ourselves off from the world? That's the most ridiculous strawman argument I've heard for a long time.
If you read what I've written here, and how the conversation has developed, you might realise you have the wrong end of the stick about my 'argument'.
By that I suppose I think that ultimately when UKIP make the tightest of rules then my wife and son will be threatened because they are not white British, or at the very least could be described as not having 'British Values' as defined by UKIP.
Do you genuinely believe that? If you do, where does it officially say that UKIP will place any restrictions on non white British?
By that I suppose I think that ultimately when UKIP make the tightest of rules then my wife and son will be threatened because they are not white British, or at the very least could be described as not having 'British Values' as defined by UKIP.
Do you genuinely believe that? If you do, where does it officially say that UKIP will place any restrictions on non white British?
I await their latest manifesto. But as I wrote earlier UKIP MEP Janice Atkinson has referred to Orientals using a racist term (Ting Tong's), and that kind of mindset amongst the UKIP high ups worries me.
The thing is, UKIP will be lucky to get elected into three or four seats in the General Election. Having said that, it is extremely disturbing to read opinions on here and of course in the more 'left wing' press, that UKIP is little more than a new form of Nazi party. Plaid Cymru and the SNP are admired in many quarters for sticking up for their fellow Scots and Welsh, no accusations there that Scottish and Welsh 'nationhood' will inevitably be achieved at the expense of non Scots/Welsh people. Anyway UKIP is already an outmoded concept. As mentioned, the Scots, Welsh and the folk of Ulster all have their own legislatures with ever increasing autonomy granted to the non English parts of the UK. If ever a serious EIP party, i.e. an ENGLISH Independence Party came into being, I for one would seriously consider voting for it if the policies were to make any form of sense. The Celtic tails have spent far too long wagging the English dogs in our so called Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's about time that the English, the majority, had a more realistic share of power than has been the case since the 18th century. If the Scots, Welsh and Irish really want to go it alone, let them do so, it'll save the English taxpayers a fortune which could be spent on the health and education of our young people, a sorely neglected part of our society.
Have I said the UK should have an open door to the rest of the EU? I believe I am saying the problem is about world resources. The 'we' you talk of, I suppose meaning the UK, has a different meaning for me. By that I suppose I think that ultimately when UKIP make the tightest of rules then my wife and son will be threatened because they are not white British, or at the very least could be described as not having 'British Values' as defined by UKIP.
By that I suppose I think that ultimately when UKIP make the tightest of rules then my wife and son will be threatened because they are not white British, or at the very least could be described as not having 'British Values' as defined by UKIP.
Do you genuinely believe that? If you do, where does it officially say that UKIP will place any restrictions on non white British?
I await their latest manifesto. But as I wrote earlier UKIP MEP Janice Atkinson has referred to Orientals using a racist term (Ting Tong's), and that kind of mindset amongst the UKIP high ups worries me.
I totally accept that there's some wronguns, but a few 'bad apples' don't make Farage and other genuine UKIP members racist does it?
Have I said the UK should have an open door to the rest of the EU? I believe I am saying the problem is about world resources. The 'we' you talk of, I suppose meaning the UK, has a different meaning for me. By that I suppose I think that ultimately when UKIP make the tightest of rules then my wife and son will be threatened because they are not white British, or at the very least could be described as not having 'British Values' as defined by UKIP.
You have got to be joking
As I said at the outset, yes it's personal. There have been enough examples of racist behaviour by those associated with UKIP to make me feel threatened and alienated. I get the basic idea about their (one and only?) policy that there are only so many people you can fit into a telephone box, and they want to make restrictions about who gets in. I think they are wrong because the problem of shared resources is a world one not a UK one. If you think I am joking I believe you are mistaken.
Have I said the UK should have an open door to the rest of the EU? I believe I am saying the problem is about world resources. The 'we' you talk of, I suppose meaning the UK, has a different meaning for me. By that I suppose I think that ultimately when UKIP make the tightest of rules then my wife and son will be threatened because they are not white British, or at the very least could be described as not having 'British Values' as defined by UKIP.
You have got to be joking
As I said at the outset, yes it's personal. There have been enough examples of racist behaviour by those associated with UKIP to make me feel threatened and alienated. I get the basic idea about their (one and only?) policy that there are only so many people you can fit into a telephone box, and they want to make restrictions about who gets in. I think they are wrong because the problem of shared resources is a world one not a UK one. If you think I am joking I believe you are mistaken.
There is no more racist behaviour within UKIP than there is within Labour or the Conservatives. You can't make up UKIP rhetoric then treat it as fact.
By that I suppose I think that ultimately when UKIP make the tightest of rules then my wife and son will be threatened because they are not white British, or at the very least could be described as not having 'British Values' as defined by UKIP.
Do you genuinely believe that? If you do, where does it officially say that UKIP will place any restrictions on non white British?
I await their latest manifesto. But as I wrote earlier UKIP MEP Janice Atkinson has referred to Orientals using a racist term (Ting Tong's), and that kind of mindset amongst the UKIP high ups worries me.
I totally accept that there's some wronguns, but a few 'bad apples' don't make Farage and other genuine UKIP members racist does it?
I have taken care earlier to say not everybody attracted to UKIP are racist, but there is enough evidence for me that racism oils its way around UKIP culture to alienate me from any worth there may be in their ideas. Janice Atkinson is a genuine UKIP member, she is a UKIP member of the European Parliament, along with Farage.
I think the man (Farage) speaks sense, I also think the vast majority agree with a lot of what he says!.........what cant you agree with??..........or understand??......and yes I will be voting for him!
Because he is a racist, arrogant, slimey wannabe.
Sadiejane is a keen supporter of diversity (the political concept, her feelings on the dance group are at this time unknown.) However I find it odd that as soon as she encounters any views or opinions that she disagrees with, she hits back with the most intolerant abusive and nasty comments.
Surely this is exactly behaviour you should discourage if you are so keen on diversity.
And we all know what a nasty tongue you have, at least when you are hiding behind a keyboard. By my very nature I am Time rich and money poor I believe is the way you described me last time!? Then you seemed to think you can judge me too. Based on what?
Who was I abusive and intolerant to on here? Nigel Farage he claims to be a politician so he's in the spotlight to be judged and criticised hardly the same thing.
Have I said the UK should have an open door to the rest of the EU? I believe I am saying the problem is about world resources. The 'we' you talk of, I suppose meaning the UK, has a different meaning for me. By that I suppose I think that ultimately when UKIP make the tightest of rules then my wife and son will be threatened because they are not white British, or at the very least could be described as not having 'British Values' as defined by UKIP.
You have got to be joking
As I said at the outset, yes it's personal. There have been enough examples of racist behaviour by those associated with UKIP to make me feel threatened and alienated. I get the basic idea about their (one and only?) policy that there are only so many people you can fit into a telephone box, and they want to make restrictions about who gets in. I think they are wrong because the problem of shared resources is a world one not a UK one. If you think I am joking I believe you are mistaken.
There is no more racist behaviour within UKIP than there is within Labour or the Conservatives. You can't make up UKIP rhetoric then treat it as fact.
You may be right about Labour and Conservatives, but I have not made up the Janice Atkinson stuff.
To say that immigration is causing pressure on government and housing resources is missing several points concurrently: 1) the western world simply cannot afford the post WWII consensus on health education and pensions which was dreamt up in different times with a different life expectancy and demographic. This is going to turn into a massive issue by 2030 2) Immigrants tend to be younger, more highly educated and more dynamic than the indigenous population. In the main, they travel a long way to work hard, and they fill vacancies or start new business or buy an education - they ain't coming here for the weather! 3) the government after the next election (whatever colour) needs to get its act together on growing the overall economy and the parts which are global players - there are four sectors in which we excel: Universities, Finacial Services, IT and creative arts / media. Clamping down on immigration, particularly for foreign students is counter productive.
No one is entitled to a guaranteed job, house etc and there's a question as to whether the NHS can continue to guarantee free healthier to all. For individuals and the country as a whole we need to compete, to engage and to welcome entrepreneurs of all colours and origins. London is an exiting city precisely because of links to the rest of the world. Perhaps that's why UKIP hardly registers in our capital.
The irony of the debate is that we see the same positions taken in the microcosm that is Cafc. We have people wanting English players for English jobs but most importantly we have a so called Liberal elite who refuse to describe honestly what's going on. Analysts try to second guess events but there is an underlying view that we are at the mercy of cold winds of competition. This uncertainty and lack of communication convinces some to look elsewhere for solutions.... Back to old familiar ways and afraid to look forwards...etc.
Comments
However I find it odd that as soon as she encounters any views or opinions that she disagrees with, she hits back with the most intolerant abusive and nasty comments.
Surely this is exactly behaviour you should discourage if you are so keen on diversity.
You describe it as bile, but the attacks on UKIP are no different than any of the other parties attacking each other, or the press having a go at the parties they don't like. That is how politics and democracy works. UKIP are playing the game of being the underdogs and everything is unfair. That view can only go so far, and like anybody putting themselves up for election, are fair game
In my view, their problem is that other than the "I don't like Europe and people who are not me" line, they haven't got any properly worked out policies, and whenever they announce something, they are hurriedly changing it due to it not being properly thought out. I can find some populist they have made, but cannot find any properly worked out policies on the economy, health, education, security and defence, and so on. All the other main parties have these, worked out, costed, and delivery plan. You might disagree with the figures or sentiment, but they are there for scrutiny. UKIP just don't have these. If they really want to be in power they need to explain in detail what they propose to do in all areas of government, not just the bit that is their shtick.
The current UKIP position is that they are deliberately holding back their manifesto. You have to ask why that is. Internally they have a real problem that they have come together over time as a rag bag of people who have focused on a single issue. Now they are being asked about what they would do in other areas, my guess is that they are struggling to get agreement.
Beyond that, Farage is a good example of an insider pretending to be on the outside. He has done a good job of tapping into a popular view, but the reality is that he has no interest in many of the people who are currently supporting him. His views are pretty standard libertarian right wing agenda, limited legislation, little tax, no support in terms of benefits, privatise everything. These are not things that will help his current core vote.
There you go. From the Murdoch media.
Can anyone that supports this ludicrous policy really see 67+ year old's being able to cope with the rigours of heavy manual labour. Of course there will be exceptions but in general ?
Unable to continue in their jobs because it's too hard they will be forced to seek benefit at a higher cost than had they been retired at 65.
Do we really see any benefit in clogging up the workplace with an ageing workforce that already have their homes, cars and comforts and who spend little in comparison to those unable to find work aged 24 and under who would drive the economy by looking to spend on that which their elders already have.
I can't think of one country on Planet Earth that is totally self sufficient and is not obliged to interact with the rest of humanity.
It's easy to accuse UKIP of being a racist party because they undeniably have closet racists in their ranks. But it does not follow that the motives of Farage are racist nor that an immigration policy cannot be exercised by non-racist main stream parties.
The knee jerk cries of "racist" from the left help project their feigned monopoly of concern for humanity, in reality it is simply preventing the mainstream politicians from adopting rational policies to protect the interests of everyone living in this country. It is nothing to do with protecting the interests of any certain section of society or stigmatising any section of society, it is about planning and resources.
Net migration was negative in 1994, it is now averaging 200,000 a year. If everyone was spread evenly between John O Groats and Lands End it would not be a problem. It isn't, and anyone who pretends it is not a problem is just spouting socialist dogma at the expense of any rational thinking. The Labour policy of open door borders and unrestricted immigration was evidence of a policy pursued in the interests of a political persona where rational decisions are secondary to maintaining a desired image.
Shouting "racist" is part of the image thing to prove you are proper socialist, just as it's a Labour image thing to try and sound like you grew up in Hackney so you can't be mistaken for the privileged enemy. Socialism is 90% image and proving you are a socialist, and 10% doing anything.
Stop worrying about UKIP as a party, acknowledge a degree of validity of much of what that are saying, and do something.
Anyway UKIP is already an outmoded concept. As mentioned, the Scots, Welsh and the folk of Ulster all have their own legislatures with ever increasing autonomy granted to the non English parts of the UK. If ever a serious EIP party, i.e. an ENGLISH Independence Party came into being, I for one would seriously consider voting for it if the policies were to make any form of sense. The Celtic tails have spent far too long wagging the English dogs in our so called Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's about time that the English, the majority, had a more realistic share of power than has been the case since the 18th century. If the Scots, Welsh and Irish really want to go it alone, let them do so, it'll save the English taxpayers a fortune which could be spent on the health and education of our young people, a sorely neglected part of our society.
If you think I am joking I believe you are mistaken.
Janice Atkinson is a genuine UKIP member, she is a UKIP member of the European Parliament, along with Farage.
Who was I abusive and intolerant to on here? Nigel Farage he claims to be a politician so he's in the spotlight to be judged and criticised hardly the same thing.
1) the western world simply cannot afford the post WWII consensus on health education and pensions which was dreamt up in different times with a different life expectancy and demographic. This is going to turn into a massive issue by 2030
2) Immigrants tend to be younger, more highly educated and more dynamic than the indigenous population. In the main, they travel a long way to work hard, and they fill vacancies or start new business or buy an education - they ain't coming here for the weather!
3) the government after the next election (whatever colour) needs to get its act together on growing the overall economy and the parts which are global players - there are four sectors in which we excel: Universities, Finacial Services, IT and creative arts / media. Clamping down on immigration, particularly for foreign students is counter productive.
No one is entitled to a guaranteed job, house etc and there's a question as to whether the NHS can continue to guarantee free healthier to all. For individuals and the country as a whole we need to compete, to engage and to welcome entrepreneurs of all colours and origins. London is an exiting city precisely because of links to the rest of the world. Perhaps that's why UKIP hardly registers in our capital.
The irony of the debate is that we see the same positions taken in the microcosm that is Cafc. We have people wanting English players for English jobs but most importantly we have a so called Liberal elite who refuse to describe honestly what's going on. Analysts try to second guess events but there is an underlying view that we are at the mercy of cold winds of competition. This uncertainty and lack of communication convinces some to look elsewhere for solutions.... Back to old familiar ways and afraid to look forwards...etc.