UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[mattmurdock]

Guam said:

I cant comment on why a political party might choose to campaign on a given issue, the discussion was about veracity of data and whether conclusions on the subject under discussion can be taken as FACT.

Once could be cynical if one chooses and surmise the issues that the ONS are facing in data collection on the three hottest issues are politically motivated, one cant condemn what one cant prove to have gone awry?

Bit of a weak side-step there Guam, would have expected better .

If you can't talk for UKIP, can you talk for yourself? Why would you support controlled immigration when there is no objective data to support either a positive or negative outcome to controlling immigration?

Actually, that is a bit of an unfair question, as I can't really answer it myself. Whilst I do feel the evidence is enough to support a positive outcome for the UK due to the free labor market, I accept that it is extremely difficult to argue that unrestricted immigration will have a long-term positive impact without making a host of assumptions. However, I do think there are a number of internal societal and structural problems in the UK that I would focus attention on long before raising concerns about immigration.

Of course, even those concerns (benefits underclass et al) are minor compared to other countries and societies on the planet (which is what makes the UK such a good place to live in I suppose ).

[don4l]

FredClogs said:

I'm still not understanding the basic hypocrisy and paradox at the heart of Kipper ideology, i.e They support free market economics, movement of capital and open border less trade but want to restrict the movement of labour and human resource. It makes no sense.

They don't support unregulated markets, or unregulated movement of capital. They also don't support unregulated migration.

Their position is entirely consistent.

Please explain why this displays hypocrisy?

[AJS-]

mattmurdock said:

AJS- said:

I can't speak for Guam, but that's exactly what I'm saying. Yes.

Do you know what a "robustness check" is?

OK, then surely the same concerns apply to any reports claiming immigration is causing an issue. Or any of the anecdotal examples people (presumably with the same qualifications as the mythical 'man down the pub') are listing as 'fact' on this and other threads.

Just throwing up your hands and saying that all of it is guesswork is not particularly helpful, especially when simultaneously trying to argue for controls on immigration as an 'obvious' solution to an 'obvious' problem.

And yes, I do know what a "robustness check" is .

I'm not citing any reports, and I do treat them all with a high degree of scepticism. They're generally a political tool designed to lead voters to a certain conclusion, and as FiF says quite often to simply bamboozle people into believing that their findings must be right. Something UKIP will undoubtedly use as well.

Anecdotal evidence does at least have the useful aspect of telling you one real live voter's perception of the issue. You can then apply a bit of intelligence and "nous" to get an idea of how widely these views are held. Not perfect but I'm generally sceptical of so called social sciences anyway.

I'm also not calling for tighter immigration controls. I'm calling for democratic control over them.

[Wombat3]

Guam said:

mattmurdock said:

Bit of a weak side-step there Guam, would have expected better .

If you can't talk for UKIP, can you talk for yourself? Why would you support controlled immigration when there is no objective data to support either a positive or negative outcome to controlling immigration?

Actually, that is a bit of an unfair question, as I can't really answer it myself. Whilst I do feel the evidence is enough to support a positive outcome for the UK due to the free labor market, I accept that it is extremely difficult to argue that unrestricted immigration will have a long-term positive impact without making a host of assumptions. However, I do think there are a number of internal societal and structural problems in the UK that I would focus attention on long before raising concerns about immigration.

Of course, even those concerns (benefits underclass et al) are minor compared to other countries and societies on the planet (which is what makes the UK such a good place to live in I suppose ).

Not at all, I am not a politician and I dont deal in a world driven by soundbites, I can surmise why they chose that (followed by every party in the country as it happens), based on my personal experiences out here on the east coast, living in Lincs with a business in Peterborough I see the issues that the average punter complains about over here first hand and have straw polled many people I have encountered over the last few months.

What you are suggesting is putting the national interest above the local ones (or appear to be). Whilst that might be fine for some things like infrastructure development, the massive impact on smaller communities out this way has not been supported by government inward investment. For many I suspect its not the sheer numbers that are the problem per se, it is the totally unplanned for impacts that are splitting the country (and it is extremely split). The metropolitan centric viewpoint those in power exhibit falls way short of what is needed to resolve these issues.

By all means have a relatively open door policy if one must, however one needs to match that with huge amounts of infrastructure development or else we will see exactly what we are seeing now and it can only get worse in a number of communities on the East Coast.

And yet the immigrants are heading to your neck of the woods precisely because there is work there. Saw an interview with a Lincs. farmer on the TV a week or so back saying that he'd be screwed without them.

Not saying its right, ideal or wholly desirable, but its not black & white either.

[zygalski]

mattmurdock said:

...If you can't talk for UKIP, can you talk for yourself? Why would you support controlled immigration when there is no objective data to support either a positive or negative outcome to controlling immigration?...

Dear boy. There's a word for it.
Xenophobia.

[Axionknight]

Guam said:

As the question was aimed at me can you back up that allegation?

Certainly, don't like the idea of crooks, vagabonds and ne'er do wells turning up unhindered?

Then you're racist.

Simple.

[WinstonWolf]

Guam said:

Wombat3 said:

And yet the immigrants are heading to your neck of the woods precisely because there is work there. Saw an interview with a Lincs. farmer on the TV a week or so back saying that he'd be screwed without them.

Not saying its right, ideal or wholly desirable, but its not black & white either.

Well aware of that but its not just the agro workers that are piling in out here, no one said its black and white, least of all me, however there are major problems out this way and even the politicians have finally woken up to that fact (thanks in the main to UKIP), citing some farmer likely paying peanuts for labourers on his farm does not solve the issues with Housing, NHS capacity, crime etc. These are real problems being faced by real voters in the East of the country.

Either control the flow or throw a shedload of money out here to solve these problems now. Choose the solution you all want, pay more in tax or turning the spigot down to a manageable level so that communities can adapt and absorb these people.

The only reason this is possible is because of the dodgy gang masters putting people up ten to a house and paying them peanuts.

It's not economic migration, it's mass exploitation.

[Scuffers]

Guam said:

Wombat3 said:

And yet the immigrants are heading to your neck of the woods precisely because there is work there. Saw an interview with a Lincs. farmer on the TV a week or so back saying that he'd be screwed without them.

Not saying its right, ideal or wholly desirable, but its not black & white either.

Well aware of that but its not just the agro workers that are piling in out here, no one said its black and white, least of all me, however there are major problems out this way and even the politicians have finally woken up to that fact (thanks in the main to UKIP), citing some farmer likely paying peanuts for labourers on his farm does not solve the issues with Housing, NHS capacity, crime etc. These are real problems being faced by real voters in the East of the country.

Either control the flow or throw a shedload of money out here to solve these problems now. Choose the solution you all want, pay more in tax or turning the spigot down to a manageable level so that communities can adapt and absorb these people.

this country has a long history of seasonal migrant workers, nobody is suggesting we stop now...

(worth pointing out that since the into of EU laws etc, bringing in seasonal workers from outside the EU is nigh on impossible, eg. sheep shearers from NZ).

[FredClogs]

don4l said:

FredClogs said:

I'm still not understanding the basic hypocrisy and paradox at the heart of Kipper ideology, i.e They support free market economics, movement of capital and open border less trade but want to restrict the movement of labour and human resource. It makes no sense.

They don't support unregulated markets, or unregulated movement of capital. They also don't support unregulated migration.

Their position is entirely consistent.

Please explain why this displays hypocrisy?

They don't!? Are you saying that under a UKIP regime we won't be able to buy foreign manufactured goods? Is it UKIP policy to prevent me buying property abroad or investing in non UK companies and bonds?

I thought the whole Thatcher.2, UKIP "small gubberment", scrapping red tape, get on yer bike schtick was about reducing regulation and empowering individuals to make money without government interference - am I wrong?

[don4l]

FredClogs said:

don4l said:

FredClogs said:

I'm still not understanding the basic hypocrisy and paradox at the heart of Kipper ideology, i.e They support free market economics, movement of capital and open border less trade but want to restrict the movement of labour and human resource. It makes no sense.

They don't support unregulated markets, or unregulated movement of capital. They also don't support unregulated migration.

Their position is entirely consistent.

Please explain why this displays hypocrisy?

They don't!? Are you saying that under a UKIP regime we won't be able to buy foreign manufactured goods? Is it UKIP policy to prevent me buying property abroad or investing in non UK companies and bonds?

I thought the whole Thatcher.2, UKIP "small gubberment", scrapping red tape, get on yer bike schtick was about reducing regulation and empowering individuals to make money without government interference - am I wrong?

You seem to be trying to argue with me about things that I didn't say.

How odd!

[WinstonWolf]

Guam said:

WinstonWolf said:

The only reason this is possible is because of the dodgy gang masters putting people up ten to a house and paying them peanuts.

It's not economic migration, it's mass exploitation.

Of course that's an element of it Winston (as we both know) the point is that is just another example of govt failure to control the problems, but careful there, showing empathy for these folks situation does not square away with being wacist or a Xenophobe!

Funny how many of the liberals inadvertently end up supporting a position that makes modern day slavery possible.

[longblackcoat]

FredClogs said:

under a UKIP regime

Will never happen. So don't worry about it.

[zygalski]

I thought Kippers were capitalist free marketeers, not protectionists & interventionists.
Seems not to be the case.

[Einion Yrth]

zygalski said:

I thought

Yet to see much evidence of that.

[AJS-]

Well I'm a free marketeer and a UKIP supporter so I'll take it on and say it's exactly the same for the labour market as for any other market in goods or services.

One of the worst aspects of protectionism is the distortion it creates. Making EU nationals massively more "competitive" than those from outside for example. When our government then decides to go and reduce immigration it means that they are going to reduce immigration from outside the EU, as this is the only type they can actually control. So the market is distorted in favour of employing EU nationals regardless of whether there are better people available from elsewhere.

Exactly as with protectionist tariffs for goods and services.

Of course the logical conclusion of that is that we should just drop all immigration controls and let everyone who wants to come here in. Obviously an election loser but it would be the principled and free market position.

With that not being possible the next best thing in my view is to have a regime that is transparent and even handed, so that it's as easy to employ a specialist from Australia or Brazil as it is to employ a specialist from Spain or Italy. Again exactly the same as with goods and services.

[mrpurple]

I realise some may prefer to focus on immigration but the fact that for 19th year in a row the EU's Court of Auditors has refused to give a clean bill of health to the EU's accounts is just as important IMO.

http://www.ukip.org/eu_accounts_fail_audit_for_19t...

[brenflys777]

mrpurple said:

I realise some may prefer to focus on immigration but the fact that for 19th year in a row the EU's Court of Auditors has refused to give a clean bill of health to the EU's accounts is just as important IMO.

http://www.ukip.org/eu_accounts_fail_audit_for_19t...

Spooky coincidence that this has been buried down the pages by the good news about EU immigration.

On the other hand it seems to be depressingly accepted that whatever the benefits of the EU it is just too hard to make it liable for its own financial misconduct. Very sad, imagine all the good that could be done in the EU if they were spending our money honestly.

[Zod]

brenflys777 said:

mrpurple said:

I realise some may prefer to focus on immigration but the fact that for 19th year in a row the EU's Court of Auditors has refused to give a clean bill of health to the EU's accounts is just as important IMO.

http://www.ukip.org/eu_accounts_fail_audit_for_19t...

Spooky coincidence that this has been buried down the pages by the good news about EU immigration.

It was on the front page of the Telegraph this morning.

[mrpurple]

This passed by almost totally not commented upon yesterday:

"The 5,000 small boats operated by the traditional UK fishing families are increasingly marginalised – holding just 4 per cent of the entire UK quota between them. Whereas A single Dutch vessel, operating out of Hull under a British flag, accounts for almost a quarter of the entire English catch and about 6 per cent of the total UK quota, worth £17m and is landed in Holland."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/half-of-e...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/04...

I am not saying there are not good reasons for this or that the Greenpeace report is not without any bias but when you get quotes like this then it really needs to be discussed, debated and highlighted far more than it is IMO:

“It’s unjust – we’ve been beaten, and beaten and beaten down since the quotas came in and robbed us, and it’s been a downward spiral ever since,” said Kirk Stribling, a small-scale fisherman operating out of the coastal town of Aldeburgh in Suffolk.

“You can just about get an existence out of it if you’re in your fifties or sixties and have paid for your house. But we can’t employ any youngsters because they need money.”

Edited by mrpurple on Wednesday 5th November 17:58

[brenflys777]

The

Zod said:

t was on the front page of the Telegraph this morning.

Good for them! I was only going on the BBC, CNN and SKY news apps, Radio 2 and the lunchtime BBC news. All give much greater prominence to a study rather than an actual factual news event. Some of these didn't mention the corrupt accounts at all. All except CNN mentioned the wonders of EU immigration.