Bolitics UKIP Nutters

[villaajax]

 

If you want to be bombed by islam extremist then vote labour    

Oooh I love this game!

 

If you want to be bombed by an Irish republican, vote Tory!

 

...wheres that face palm pic? We might need a few.

 

 

If you want those immigrants coming over here with their metric system and measurements, stealing the jobs of our imperial system, vote Labour!

[Risso]

I can't help but smile at how the subject of immigration suddenly makes socialists start decrying government interference in social planning issues and resorting to arguments of free market supply and demand to make their point!

 

Quite.  And how we need immigrants to do jobs that people over here refuse to do, despite there being millions unemployed.  Unemployed people who are all hard-working salt of the earth types who would never refuse a job to stay on benefits.  

[blandy]

I would tend to think that the UK is a fairly crowded Country. There must come a point when the UK has to consider how it can cope with further influx of immigrants no matter where they are from or what colour they are and surely this is not racism - just realistic.

 

I wish someone would explain this.

 

We have a larger population than at any time in history (like pretty much everywhere else).  Yet in the big cities we live at lower housing densities than, say, between the wars, or in Edwardian times.  Some areas of the country are struggling with depopulation and are trying to attract people to move there.  We produce so much food that we throw away mountains of the stuff, even as people go hungry.

The points you make are tangential, they don’t refute or invalidate the question. Housing density, for example. if you double the area of a town, and increase its population by 90% the density goes down, but the demands for resources, on the environemnt and so on have still gone up. The UK is densely populated compared to most other nations. The human race is expanding in mumbers at ever increasing rates and we’re wrecking the planet. We’re doing so not because of immigration, but nevertheless the demands increased numbers of people place on the planet, on nations, on cities, towns, villages has an adverse overall impact. Considering the question of higher numbers of people living in the UK is a valid issue and concern. To dismiss itis to be blind to reality.

Yes some areas are struggling with depopulation, people moving to cities and the south east from inside the UK, as well as from outside. If anything that worsens the burden on those places, and two areas are disadvantaged as a result.

Re food, we consume an enormous amount and throw too much away, but we’re a net importer. We cannot support our own needs ourselves. As more land is turned from agriculture to housing and roads, that worsens the problem. And then more wilderness or forests are turned into farmland, or housing. Ditto, the environment suffers.

It’s not racism to have a concern over the ability of the place to support high numbers of people. It’s a massive issue for the planet and for the country.

 

It's true that vast areas of the country are no-go areas, fenced off as grouse moors for the leisure of bankers, or as set-aside for the wealthiest to screw state handouts, but we don't overall seem short of land.

We are. We cannot grow more land. There is a finite area. As you move housing to floodplains, to greenbelt, you create a problem.

 

We're short of housing, as a direct and inevitable consequence of political decisions to build far less than was known was needed, in order to drive up prices and push people into the private rented sector.  But that's not because of shortage of suitable land, or immigration - it's a simple political calculation to benefit landowners at the expense of the rest of us.

Hmmm. Yes and no. We’re also short of housing because of demographics. People living in smaller households, people living longer.

 

So what does this "too crowded" idea actually mean?

 

We also know that we need immigration in order to keep the economy going, ensure we have people who will do the jobs like social care and crop-picking and cleaning and healthcare and catering which would otherwise be short of staff.  We know that immigration is a net economic benefit; we would be worse off, not better off, if we stopped immigration.  We know that we basically need immigrants if we are to pay our pensions.

 

We know all this.  And yet there's a groundswell of opinion, based not on knowledge, research, reading, or fact, but on "common sense", that would have it that immigration is bad, makes us worse off, generates unemployment, and fills up a few tiny remaining spaces in our grossly overcrowded land.  It seems that it is enough to state this as a fact, to have it believed far and wide.

 

Was it like this in the time of burning witches?  I rather think it might have been.  How slowly we develop.  How slowly.

If people were saying the country was “full”, then yes, that’s a valid point. Some are, and they’re wrong. Nevertheless concern over numbers going up is equally as valid as if numbers were going down. There are consequences, some good, some bad in either example. It’s an issue which gets talked about in a context which is heated and sensitive, instead of objectively.

[peterms]

No no no that is making out everyone who is worried is racist or xenophobic that is totally wrong. People are worried about getting a hospital bed when they are really sick, feeding their kids because they can't get a job, getting a property to live in because there's no council houses. We can't handle the amount of people we have right now. Despite the cuts the wefare budget keeps going up....

 

It's true that a great many people who are concerned about the things you list aren't racist.

 

It's also true that racists will often try to present their concerns as being about rational, objective, race-neutral issues because they are aware that racism now meets with far more social disapproval than it did say 50 years ago.  It's not on to say "I don't like blacks", and it is more acceptable to talk about pressure on resources and so on.  And so racists will have that kind of conversation instead, except when they feel safe expressing more overtly racist attitudes.  They don't like having to cloak their feelings in this way, and they therefore decry "political correctness" as an assault on their civil liberties.

 

If people are worried about receiving care when they're sick, they might want to think about who's providing the care.  We have depended on immigrants to keep the health service running since the days when Enoch Powell, as Minister of Health, advertised in the West Indies for nurses.  If they can't get a job, they might consider the absurd economic policies which have deliberately created this state of affairs, who benefits from this, and who is responsible.  If they can't find proper housing, they should think about the deliberate running down of council housing and the inflation of the property bubble - again, both deliberate policies to enrich the wealthy.  And if they feel the welfare budget should come down, they might want to check the figures for the relative share of social security which goes to a) the unemployed and b ) pensioners, reflect on the fact that immigrants are less likely to be in receipt of benefits than the indigenous population, and then think a bit more carefully about some of the ideas they picked up down the pub or from the likes of Jeremy Clarkson.

[peterms]

If you want to be bombed by islam extremists then vote labour    

 

Were you a candidate for Smethwick in the 1964 general election?

[peterms]

I can't help but smile at how the subject of immigration suddenly makes socialists start decrying government interference in social planning issues and resorting to arguments of free market supply and demand to make their point!

 

Actually people including me have exactly been making the case for government interference in social planning, and pointing out the inadequacies of the free market.

[peterms]

The points you make are tangential, they don’t refute or invalidate the question. Housing density, for example. if you double the area of a town, and increase its population by 90% the density goes down, but the demands for resources, on the environemnt and so on have still gone up. The UK is densely populated compared to most other nations. The human race is expanding in mumbers at ever increasing rates and we’re wrecking the planet. We’re doing so not because of immigration, but nevertheless the demands increased numbers of people place on the planet, on nations, on cities, towns, villages has an adverse overall impact. Considering the question of higher numbers of people living in the UK is a valid issue and concern. To dismiss itis to be blind to reality.

Yes some areas are struggling with depopulation, people moving to cities and the south east from inside the UK, as well as from outside. If anything that worsens the burden on those places, and two areas are disadvantaged as a result.

Re food, we consume an enormous amount and throw too much away, but we’re a net importer. We cannot support our own needs ourselves. As more land is turned from agriculture to housing and roads, that worsens the problem. And then more wilderness or forests are turned into farmland, or housing. Ditto, the environment suffers.

It’s not racism to have a concern over the ability of the place to support high numbers of people. It’s a massive issue for the planet and for the country.

The argument that "we're full up" is not made in relation to the planet. In fact most of the people you can hear making it appear to care little or nothing about wider environmental issues - they are talking about their own immediate area, or else (eg in the case of 96% white Eastleigh), expressing a dislike for "others" in terms of limited resources. It's not a concern about the environment or the planet, it's a social concern. For many of those making it, including Ukip candidates, it is indeed a racist thing. So it seems perfectly reasonable to answer concerns about us splitting at the seams by pointing out that, for example, the population of the fastest-growing place (apart from Inverness), London, is still lower than before the war.

It's a bit like the one about immigrants being a drain on the nation's resources. If you show that in fact they are a net contributor to economic well-being, the concern doesn't go away, because it was never about that in the first place.

 

It's true that vast areas of the country are no-go areas, fenced off as grouse moors for the leisure of bankers, or as set-aside for the wealthiest to screw state handouts, but we don't overall seem short of land.

We are. We cannot grow more land. There is a finite area. As you move housing to floodplains, to greenbelt, you create a problem.

Yes, I've said I think we should prefer (good quality) higher density housing to urban sprawl. I'd like to see higher density cities, and less dreary semis and bungalows, mile after repetitive mile.

[peterms]

Hmmm. Yes and no. We’re also short of housing because of demographics. People living in smaller households, people living longer.

Yes. And we've known for a very long time the projections, updated annually, of what these known demographic changes would mean for housing demand. It's not something that's come as a big surprise, but government policy has been not to adjust housing supply in relation to this long-known demand. We need to look at who gains and who loses from this mismatch, in order to understand the motivation of the government for doing so.

 

If people were saying the country was “full”, then yes, that’s a valid point. Some are, and they’re wrong. Nevertheless concern over numbers going up is equally as valid as if numbers were going down. There are consequences, some good, some bad in either example. It’s an issue which gets talked about in a context which is heated and sensitive, instead of objectively.

Yes, we should be having discussions about the problems caused by populations going up and down more quickly than we can easily manage, with all the implications for schools, transport, sewerage and everything else. We would no doubt quickly decide that we should have some sort of regional economic strategy to create and support employment in areas where we want to encourage people to go, or remain. But that's not the discussion we tend to have, or the conclusion we tend to reach. I think that's because the discussion isn't actually about sensible planning, but an attempt to play groups of people off against each other, cloaking an appeal to fears and emotions in the language of infrastructural capacity.

[blandy]

Hmmm. Yes and no. We’re also short of housing because of demographics. People living in smaller households, people living longer.

Yes. And we've known for a very long time the projections, updated annually, of what these known demographic changes would mean for housing demand. It's not something that's come as a big surprise, but government policy has been not to adjust housing supply in relation to this long-known demand. We need to look at who gains and who loses from this mismatch, in order to understand the motivation of the government for doing so.

 

If people were saying the country was “full”, then yes, that’s a valid point. Some are, and they’re wrong. Nevertheless concern over numbers going up is equally as valid as if numbers were going down. There are consequences, some good, some bad in either example. It’s an issue which gets talked about in a context which is heated and sensitive, instead of objectively.

Yes, we should be having discussions about the problems caused by populations going up and down more quickly than we can easily manage, with all the implications for schools, transport, sewerage and everything else. We would no doubt quickly decide that we should have some sort of regional economic strategy to create and support employment in areas where we want to encourage people to go, or remain. But that's not the discussion we tend to have, or the conclusion we tend to reach. I think that's because the discussion isn't actually about sensible planning, but an attempt to play groups of people off against each other, cloaking an appeal to fears and emotions in the language of infrastructural capacity.

Indeed, and that’s the point. UKIP’s policy is wrong, and their underlying “appeal” is based on a kind of lowest common denominator approach. Yet that doesn’t invalidate the need for debate and action. Because the reaction to them tends towards “they’re racist” or similar, the overall issue is missed. I’m not convinced that successive governments have deliberately “rigged” house building to benefit anyone, consciously. I think it’s more a case that they just have no control or idea over it. It’s house-builders being left to build the most profitable buildings, with little regulation. There’s been some rules about building a few percent ofhomes in big developments as “affordable housing”, but no real management (for good or bad) of building.

Meanwhile the population has increased and the stresses and strains that causes are being felt. And they’re played up and magnified by the likes of UKIP. Bit no party, Labour or Tory, counters their assault with reason, just with an uncomprehending disbelief and muttered accusations of fruit-cakery. UKIP are fruitcakes, true, but just repeating that isn’t going to win any argument, it’s going to lose it.

So the way I see it is there is a genuine issue that needs to be addressed. That of population expansion, of strain on resources, natural and economic. UKIP, once a one issue “anti-EU” party has cynically grabbed hold of it, pointed at foreigners and shouted “down with them”. Meanwhile, the others have gone “nutty racists” and neither has a grip on the problem. It’s a massive failure of politics. UKIP will and has gained from it because of the utter failure of other mainstream parties to address the core issue.

It’s not a right wing or left wing thing, but it’s being treated like it is. It’s lamentable.

[blandy]

The argument that "we're full up" is not made in relation to the planet. In fact most of the people you can hear making it appear to care little or nothing about wider environmental issues - they are talking about their own immediate area, or else (eg in the case of 96% white Eastleigh), expressing a dislike for "others" in terms of limited resources. It's not a concern about the environment or the planet, it's a social concern. For many of those making it, including Ukip candidates, it is indeed a racist thing. So it seems perfectly reasonable to answer concerns about us splitting at the seams by pointing out that, for example, the population of the fastest-growing place (apart from Inverness), London, is still lower than before the war.

It's a bit like the one about immigrants being a drain on the nation's resources. If you show that in fact they are a net contributor to economic well-being, the concern doesn't go away, because it was never about that in the first place.

 

Sort of, in my view. I think the real issue is at least as much about the environment and planet as “social issues”. I don’t think they’re really separate. One leads to the other. The talk is about the symptoms, not the cause. And that’s a shame.

London may have fewer people living in it than at some previous time-shot, but the London area and the South Easy has way way more people living there than at any previous time in history. Artificial boundaries or borders are not the point. Whether they’re town boundaries or national ones.

Like with unfettered markets, unfettered borders are not the answer. If we leave people to move and drift as the climate dictates, this will over-stress areas and leave others with population drains. If all the skilled workers and go-getting youth from poor nation A migrate to rich nation B, then poor nation A is left even worse off. If they later return, then the rich nation is left with a sudden drop in skilled labour. Lose again.

It’s not a competition, the planet, it’s something where co-operation is the only way to succeed. That’s another reason why UKIP is wrong. They want to have us as an isolated “little England” (and it is just England).

[PaulC]

 

No no no that is making out everyone who is worried is racist or xenophobic that is totally wrong. People are worried about getting a hospital bed when they are really sick, feeding their kids because they can't get a job, getting a property to live in because there's no council houses. We can't handle the amount of people we have right now. Despite the cuts the wefare budget keeps going up....

 

It's true that a great many people who are concerned about the things you list aren't racist.

 

It's also true that racists will often try to present their concerns as being about rational, objective, race-neutral issues because they are aware that racism now meets with far more social disapproval than it did say 50 years ago.  It's not on to say "I don't like blacks", and it is more acceptable to talk about pressure on resources and so on.  And so racists will have that kind of conversation instead, except when they feel safe expressing more overtly racist attitudes.  They don't like having to cloak their feelings in this way, and they therefore decry "political correctness" as an assault on their civil liberties.

 

If people are worried about receiving care when they're sick, they might want to think about who's providing the care.  We have depended on immigrants to keep the health service running since the days when Enoch Powell, as Minister of Health, advertised in the West Indies for nurses.  If they can't get a job, they might consider the absurd economic policies which have deliberately created this state of affairs, who benefits from this, and who is responsible.  If they can't find proper housing, they should think about the deliberate running down of council housing and the inflation of the property bubble - again, both deliberate policies to enrich the wealthy.  And if they feel the welfare budget should come down, they might want to check the figures for the relative share of social security which goes to a) the unemployed and b ) pensioners, reflect on the fact that immigrants are less likely to be in receipt of benefits than the indigenous population, and then think a bit more carefully about some of the ideas they picked up down the pub or from the likes of Jeremy Clarkson.

 

 

I agree with all that but is it any use reflecting who or what  caused these issues, but on what we are going to do to solve them. Like you I have no faith in the current govt and wish I had more faith in the Labour party. We need a referendum to see where we stand on Europe and immigration and I would like it without the party's telling us which way we should vote.

[peterms]

I agree with all that but is it any use reflecting who or what  caused these issues, but on what we are going to do to solve them.

 

I would say it's absolutely necessary to think about the cause of a problem before trying to solve it.  If you don't, then you're just trying things at random in the hope that at some point in time you might hit the right solution.  That might be ok for something like asking a kid which hand the sweet is in, but I don't suppose we'd want our doctor or our garage to use the same approach for more complex problems with real life costs for trying the wrong things on a whim.

 

In the case of immigration, when the facts are showing that it's a net benefit to the country but people are continually being told it's the opposite, then a referendum on "where we stand" is likely to be a measure of the relative effectiveness of propaganda, not a path to a rational policy.

[PaulC]

 

In the case of immigration, when the facts are showing that it's a net benefit to the country but people are continually being told it's the opposite, then a referendum on "where we stand" is likely to be a measure of the relative effectiveness of propaganda, not a path to a rational policy.

 

 

I still not entirely convinced by the net benefit. I agree with nurses and other skilled jobs, but having unskilled workers come in and do jobs for minimum wage or below does not help us long-term, especially when we have a massive unemployment problem.

[villaajax]

I have always agreed with the Australian system.

 

If somebody would like to migrate to this country they must be able to speak English to a good standard, they should also have a certain amount of money behind them so that they aren't just coming here and straight onto benefits and if they are moving here for work, then we should only accept people who can do jobs that require the skills that may be lacking in this country already.

 

Surely that is a sensible way of doing things without turning to small minded xenophobia?

[bickster]

I have always agreed with the Australian system.

 

If somebody would like to migrate to this country they must be able to speak English to a good standard, they should also have a certain amount of money behind them so that they aren't just coming here and straight onto benefits and if they are moving here for work, then we should only accept people who can do jobs that require the skills that may be lacking in this country already.

 

Surely that is a sensible way of doing things without turning to small minded xenophobia?

There's a huge ton of small minded xenophobia in Australia, you only have to see the reaction when a boat load of refugees is offshore to understand that. Their right wing politicians and ours are not that different in their rhetoric and their aims.

But you can't have that as a policy and remain inside the EU anyway, it would be against the free movement of labour between members. Australia can do it because they are an entity in themselves, we are no longer in that position, our sovereignty on such matters disappeared a long time ago.

[PaulC]

So lets have the referendum and let the public decide whether we want to remain in the EU

[chrisp65]

So lets have the referendum and let the public decide whether we want to remain in the EU

 

that's quite straightforward to achieve

 

what's less clear, is whether the great British public would have all the actual cold facts and figures of the consequences of either result put in front of them in a calm rational digestable manner

 

we'll end up with tvvats like Farage and Redwood telling us our rights as humans have been sold into slavery by Monsieur Rumpypumpy and we'll have Clegg and Milliband telling us we'll die in a cold nuclear winter if we don't do whatever the French tell us we have to do

[colhint]

i think you underestimate the vast majority of British people

[PaulC]

Yes I know and it would be interesting to   see what the turnout would be! If its less than 70% it shows how apathetic people are.

 

Monsieur Rumpypumpy

[blandy]

what's less clear, is whether the great British public would have all the actual cold facts and figures of the consequences of either result put in front of them in a calm rational digestable

lack of knowledge, understanding or experience doesn't seem to stop politicians from voting on stuff. Most f them seem to vote on party lines. Under the whip, not on any deeply felt experiences or researched facts, more's the pity.