Bolitics UKIP Nutters

[PaulC]

 

 

Wishing to see one's government put it's own people first doesn't denote fear or hatred of foreigners, any more than wishing to leave the EU makes one a racist who hates Europeans. It's that misuse of language in favour of reasoned argument that is creating the space for UKIP to thrive.

I'm not sure how you can post that (without a mischievous smirk) in the face of the evidence of how UKIP put forward their case on immigration (and not just in the odd leaflet for which an individual - say Woolas, for example - might be accused of cynically playing upon immigration fears to whip up the electorate in one particular area/constituency).

I cannot see how you (or anyone else) can seriously argue that for them to couch it in the terms that they do (e.g. to talk about what is the entire population of both countries whose status changes on Jan 1st) is not intended to make people fearful (of these two countries' nationals and by extension any other immigrants - especially when they also say in the same leaflet, "Proposed new housing developments are due largely as a result of mass immigration from within Europe").

 

If they said that 29 million people from R & B will have access to the UK from 1st of Jan then that is a statement of fact. Does that mean they will all move here? No. Does that mean they would in theory have the legal right to do so if they wished? Yes, it does.  From what I've seen and read of Farage's arguments he has presented the potential problems associated with a large influx of migrants from these countries in three main ways:

 

1. The potential strain on the benefits system and public services , i.e. health, education and housing.  Are these services not already over strained? Is there money available to make further substantial investments in these services at the moment? I don't think there is or one would assume those investments would already be happening.  If someone from those countries comes to UK and claims they are self employed and looking for work then they can access the benefits system within weeks. That benefits system allegedly provides a level of income that exceeds the average wage in R & B. It's not difficult to imagine what the result might be.

 

2. Youth unemployment. With one million young unemployed Britons currently looking for work, is a potential influx of unskilled labour (who will be prepared to be exploited by employers for sub-minimum wage conditions) going to make it even more difficult to get those people into jobs? I think the answer to that is fairly obvious and much like the mass immigration from Poland enabled employers to drive down wages for both artisan tradesman and unskilled workers it would be reasonable to expect a repeat of that situation - while accepting that migrants from R & B will have more EU countries to choose from than Polish migrants did when they came to UK.   I'm not anti-immigration, it is essential to fill gaps in the skilled labour market. I do think that being unable to control the flow of unskilled immigration is potentially damaging to those sections of our society least able to afford it.

 

3. Crime. It is obviously offensive to suggest an entire population are basically crooks, however Farage was trotting out a statistic from the Met Police in the run up to these elections that was so inflammatory that if it was incorrect he would he been crucified for it. In last 3 years there have been 30,000 arrests of Romanians in London out of a total Romanian population of 80,000...That's a staggering number and looking at those figures is it really illegitimate to raise the question of whether we should actually be able to control the flow of people from that country?  If you don't control your own borders then you are not really a sovereign nation. 

 

 

 

Very good points. Why is it people think if you are against mass immigration then you are either

Xenophobic or racist, the same as if you are anti gay marriage then you are Homophobic. Neither is true!

Edited May 4, 2013 by PaulC

[mjmooney]

Both are true. 

[PaulC]

Both are true. 

 

 

??

[Seat68]

How can you be against equal marriage and not be homophobic?

[jon_c]

How can you be against equal marriage and not be homophobic?

I completely agree, what the **** has I it got to do with anyone except the two people in love who would like to get married?

They are not be forcing any churches into making them religious ceremonies, just giving gay people the same marriage rights as anyone else.  

[veloman]

Both are true. 

Hang on a minute. I know Mr Mooney does not post banalities as a rule but  this might be a little polemic. Surely there is room for someone who finds the act of homosexuality (without going in to visceral detail) fairly repugnant but does not go around 'queer-bashing', as it used to be called.  If such a person exists are they automatically thugs, uneducated etc. 

Equally with racism; 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.

[jon_c]

ho·mo·pho·bi·a   /ˌhōməˈfōbēə/ Noun An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people

 

Homophobic doesn't mean you are a thug that goes around 'queer-bashing'. It is an extreme and irrational aversion, and if how you put it someone finds just the very idea 'fairly repugnant', I would say that is the very dictionary definition of homophobic.

Edited May 5, 2013 by jon_c

[rjw63]

 

Both are true. 

Hang on a minute. I know Mr Mooney does not post banalities as a rule but  this might be a little polemic. Surely there is room for someone who finds the act of homosexuality (without going in to visceral detail) fairly repugnant but does not go around 'queer-bashing', as it used to be called.  If such a person exists are they automatically thugs, uneducated etc. 

Equally with racism; 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.

 

Hey Mr Cyclist you can't say that - the Lefties will be after ya!

[bickster]

veloman, on 05 May 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

Equally with racism; 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.

xenophobia isn't racism for starters. Not once have I seen UKIP mention their immigration policy in a non-xenophobic way. Currently it's Romanians and Bulgarians that they are targeting with their tirades (before that it was the Poles, who've all settled in and are working hard) , that specifying of immigrants is in itself xenophobic. UKIP's entire raison d'etre plays on and appeals to the xenophobic and the idea that the UK is full and these people are coming here to "steal our jobs" or "scrounge our benefits", when the reality in my experience is that its the UK born and bred that don't want the jobs and live on benefits. All the doleites I come across are British, the Eastern Europeans generally have jobs and pay taxes.

[jon_c]

I'd don't think it is that all Eastern Europeans are hard working, I think it's just someone who was motivated enough to get off there ass and travel half way across Europe to look for a job is probably more motivated to do hard work. Countries like Poland probably have dole scroungers just like we do, they are just not the sort of people who would bother to travel to another country to do it. Especially if you consider the unemployed in this country could go to better faring European economies like Germany to look for work, and I don't see many motivated into doing that. 

[blandy]

xenophobia isn't racism for starters. Not once have I seen UKIP mention their immigration policy in a non-xenophobic way. Currently it's Romanians and Bulgarians that they are targeting with their tirades (before that it was the Poles, who've all settled in and are working hard) , that specifying of immigrants is in itself xenophobic. UKIP's entire raison d'etre plays on and appeals to the xenophobic and the idea that the UK is full and these people are coming here to "steal our jobs" or "scrounge our benefits", when the reality in my experience is that its the UK born and bred that don't want the jobs and live on benefits. All the doleites I come across are British, the Eastern Europeans generally have jobs and pay taxes.

I think their entire raison d’etre is anti EU - i.e. they vehemently dislike the EU having any say in the way our Country is governed. Then you tag on the connections that brings with it, which is as you say.

It’s unrealistic to think that in the 21st century the way the rest of the world, or europe operates can somehow be shut off from impacting the UK. The UKIP thing about sovereignty is kind of irrelevant - a principle, sure, but of little actual consequence in the scheme of things. As a core purpose, it’s kind of by the by.

It’s true a lot of europe is against greater collectivism, and for preservation of independence from a beaurocratic super government, but I think none of the UK parties are actually in favour of such a thing anyway, not even the Lib Dems.

There are huge governance problems with the way the EU is administered, it’s neither a super state, nor a collection of independent individual nations, and is a bit of a mess, albeit one that does a lot more good than it’s given credit for. Similar in a way the the government (not politics) of the UK.

To me it seems like addressing the actual problems is more important than in/out, which would not solve anything, really.

It;s that obsessions, together with strong conservatism that is to me bonkers from the UKIP (and the tory right wingers). It’s a dream to go back to the 1950s or something, it’s not possible, and even if it were, it’s not an improvement.

[villaajax]

Hopefully the real political parties (Labour and Tory) will now review their immigration policies and adopt something that works better without resorting to discrimination and xenophobia.

 

Once they do this, the whole UKIP craze will die down again.

[PaulC]

Just give us a referendum and then the interest in UKIP will die down. My biggest worry about the UKIP is that even if Labour win the next election, they may not get a majority and the UKIP will hold the balance of power and a coalition will be formed between them and the Tories to form the govt. It would be a disaster if that happened.

[peterms]

I see the BNP are keeping an eye on what sort of person is joining Ukip.

 

Join us – or do this!

 

If, for whatever reason, anyone who thinks of themselves as a nationalist isn’t prepared to join us and lend a shoulder to our wheel, then there is one other useful thing they can do:

That is to join UKIP or to put in effort in the social networks to find and influence those who have. Over the next few months, UKIP will sign up thousands of new, mainly newly politicised, members. Most of them are not merely patriotic, they are also instinctively, though at present totally incoherently, nationalist and racially aware. They don’t really belong with Farage and his internationalist big business set at all.

 

It will not take many people within UKIP to set about the quiet, careful promotion of genuine nationalism in order to create an underground ideological tendency. Done systematically, this can bear big, juicy fruit for real nationalism in the future. UKIP is growing too fast to be stable and it contains too many fundamental contradictions to avoid explosive divisions in the future.

 

Those nationalists who are not willing to be with us in the BNP should take note of this massive medium-term opportunity and get to work to seize it. We’ll be doing our bit too, but the more who move in and spread nationalist groundbait in the expanding UKIP pond the better.

 

 

[villaajax]

BNP lending their support to UKIP? Says it all really.

[peterms]

Ukip would see it more as infiltration on the lines of Militant and the Labour Party.

 

And I suppose they are welcoming the rise of Ukip if it drags mainstream politics a little to the right, making slightly more acceptable attitudes which would be laughed out in better times.

 

What I think is instructive is that while Ukip are protesting how much they are a mainstream, non-racist party, a hardcore racist party sees Ukip recruits as "instinctively, though at present totally incoherently, nationalist and racially aware".  I think we all know what "racially aware" means in BNP-speak.

 

You can be sure this is not simply a flight of fancy on the part of the BNP, but a reflection based on observation.  I suspect they are closer to the truth than many would like to admit.

 

[peterms]

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.

 

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'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.

 

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.

[PaulC]

Its not just the housing shortage that's a problem. Its the NHS that cant cope with the extra strain, Roads, Public transport. The population in England and Wales has grown by 3.7 million in the last 10 year. London itself has grown by 12% in 10 years. We have 1 million young people without jobs, so I don't its wrong for the people in this Country to be concerned about immigration.  We need immigrants for healthcare and skilled jobs but we don't need any more unskilled people.....I hate the UKIP but Labour opened the floodgates and we are paying for that now.

[Seat68]

Can you please back up the last statement, I suspect you are right but could you give evidence for Labour opening the floodgates please. Is it because of Labour being in power in 67?

[colhint]

Didn't the population grow by 3.7m or 7% in a decade?. Anyway to Peters point. Yes the big cities are less densely populated than years ago, but then people were living in back to back tenement buildings, where there was no space for anyone to move or kids to play. Disease spread very quickly in this environment. What has happened since is that people have moved further from the City centre to the outskirts. The west midlands conurbation for example didn't really exist. Walsall, Wolverhampton Coventry etc were separate units. Today they are pretty much all one. Same happened in all the big Cities. So the population density may have dropped the whole has increased and the urban size has too. This has seriously affected price of land. Furthermore it has affected the facilities in the City. Take the hospitals for example, they cannot just build new wings on open land, cos there ain't any. They have to extend within, taking away parking spaces for example.Try visiting most hospitals at visiting time, you have to be early to get a place, its like parking at a football match. As for the land, well vast areas are fenced off for grouse shooting, but these are mainly moors, where nothing grows. It cant be used for farming. Do you honestly think that anyone with land that could be used for farming which makes far more profit, would just use it for hunting for a few months a year. 

But the big point though is water. We just don't have enough. Every year we have hosepipe bans. They do this because we are low on water, very low. Most of the water we have is in the wrong place for the Cites, Birminghams comes nearly 100 miles. Some people just assume we can have some sort of water M1 running through the country picking up from all over. This is not possible due to the geology of the land and the different minerals in the lakes and rivers, Mixing the wrong types becomes toxic. 

 

So a 7% growth in population for the next 50 years would give us a population close to 80m. I reckon at that there would be a permanent hose pipe ban and you would probably only be able to flush your bog twice a day.