Why the UKIP will never work....

[iphonedyou]

twoblacklines said:

I think it is obvious you are upper class if you have over 500mill networth, are a member of the House of Lords, and get driven around in a car you own which has an RRP of more than the majority of UK houses.

You're conflating money with class, there. Try again.

[wc98]

Mr Whippy said:

Again I agree.

This was a big own goal for UKIP.

When asked about the Polish guy working hard, they should have said those wishing to contribute and work hard under new immigration rules like other countries enjoy and employ appropriately, then such people can continue to live and work in the UK... think Australia... or words to that effect.

I really struggle to understand how UKIP can be seeming to falter so dramatically all of a sudden.

Surely all this should have been written down and signed off years ago and ingrained in every members brain?!

this has me slightly concerned as well. i put it down to the "newness" of the party in the current guise. it is now time to get the thinking caps on and get policy defined . if they go the route of populism on all issues the only other option will be to vote monster raving loony party or the guy fawkes route

[sidicks]

iphonedyou said:

You're conflating money with class, there. Try again.

Exactly!

[FiF]

twoblacklines said:

I am not banned anywhere in PH forums. Until I am I will post what I want where I want to in agreement with the general rules.

Thanks.

Why did you think that was referring to you? Because it wasn't. Something you'd like to share?

The mods have a clear view on this. Banned from volume 1 of a thread. Behave the same volume 2 then out they go on their ear. Not coming back.

Still don't see why you are getting all twitchy. Within the the rules no problem. Trouble is some can't behave.

[Countdown]

wc98 said:

this has me slightly concerned as well. i put it down to the "newness" of the party in the current guise. it is now time to get the thinking caps on and get policy defined . if they go the route of populism on all issues the only other option will be to vote monster raving loony party or the guy fawkes route

By definition, if they don't go down the route of "populism" they won't get elected.

[Mr Whippy]

Countdown said:

wc98 said:

this has me slightly concerned as well. i put it down to the "newness" of the party in the current guise. it is now time to get the thinking caps on and get policy defined . if they go the route of populism on all issues the only other option will be to vote monster raving loony party or the guy fawkes route

By definition, if they don't go down the route of "populism" they won't get elected.

They're winning seats all over based on their belief on a few core issues.

If they start appealing to 'everyone' on everything under the sun, then they stand for nothing but a big pile of turd, just like the Illiberal Democrats.


By definition Liberal Democrats would be the way I'd vote every day of the week. But they're not Liberal at all.


Own a car that uses a bit more petrol, but drive it rarely. EVIL, TAX YOU!

Own a nice big house and sacrifice nice holidays and nights out, EVIL, TAX YOU!



If UKIP fall into the idea of appealing to everyone, they'll also appeal to no one, just like all the current parties, which is why a party that IS standing up for something singular, leaving Europe, UKIP, were doing so well... up till now at least.

If the deviate too far from that then they're fooked imo.

Dave

[mrpurple]

Countdown said:

wc98 said:

this has me slightly concerned as well. i put it down to the "newness" of the party in the current guise. it is now time to get the thinking caps on and get policy defined . if they go the route of populism on all issues the only other option will be to vote monster raving loony party or the guy fawkes route

By definition, if they don't go down the route of "populism" they won't get elected.

Populism is a political doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general people, especially contrasting those interests with the interests of the elite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

I really struggle to see why any party would not want to follow popular policies...unless they only want to represent the elite of course...but then I am an uneducated left-behind kipper.

[Amateurish]

sidicks said:

I understand 100% the net contribution that some immigrants have brought to the contrary. That's why a support a policy of controlled immigration...

So do UKIP, but none of the other parties!

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 26th November 12:46

I think you will find that *all* major parties support controlled immigration - it's the level of control that is the rub! Only the Greens (if you are counting them) actually support uncontrolled immigration.

[sidicks]

Amateurish said:

I think you will find that *all* major parties support controlled immigration - it's the level of control that is the rub! Only the Greens (if you are counting them) actually support uncontrolled immigration.

I think you'll find that inside the EU there is next to no control that can be exerted....

[Amateurish]

sidicks said:

Amateurish said:

I think you will find that *all* major parties support controlled immigration - it's the level of control that is the rub! Only the Greens (if you are counting them) actually support uncontrolled immigration.

I think you'll find that inside the EU there is next to no control that can be exerted....

I know that, but you didn't say you were only talking about EU immigration. EU immigration brings significant net benefit to the country. Is that what you want controlling? Most people are more worried about extra-EU immigration.

My point is that it is very easy to say that you want "controlled" immigration. The difficulty is defining precisely what those controls are. And does that involve "repatriating" EU migrants, as Mr Reckless recently said?

[sidicks]

Amateurish said:

I know that, but you didn't say you were only talking about EU immigration.

I wasn't talking about 'only' anything. I was talking about immigration in aggregate, being able to control non-EU immigration is meaningless if you cannot control EU immigration...

It's like saying you were in total control of the car (apart from the bit that crashed)...

Amateurish said:

EU immigration brings significant net benefit to the country. Is that what you want controlling?

Let's not get into the debate about the massive flaws in that 'analysis'!

Amateurish said:

Most people are more worried about extra-EU immigration.

I don't believe so - I think 'most people' are worried about the immigration we have no control over..!

Amateurish said:

My point is that it is very easy to say that you want "controlled" immigration. The difficulty is defining precisely what those controls are. And does that involve "repatriating" EU migrants, as Mr Reckless recently said?

I think a sensible 'points system' as used by other countries would be a sensible start...

[s2art]

Amateurish said:

My point is that it is very easy to say that you want "controlled" immigration. The difficulty is defining precisely what those controls are. And does that involve "repatriating" EU migrants, as Mr Reckless recently said?

Australia, Canada etc seem to have no problem in defining precisely what the controls are, so why should we.
I imagine there will be some repatriation in the future as the system will be based upon work permits. Many already here will apply for residency, and most will get it.

[Amateurish]

sidicks said:

Amateurish said:

I know that, but you didn't say you were only talking about EU immigration.

I wasn't talking about 'only' anything. I was talking about immigration in aggregate, being able to control non-EU immigration is meaningless if you cannot control EU immigration...

It's like saying you were in total control of the car (apart from the bit that crashed)...

Why is it "meaningless"? It is totally reasonable to have different immigration controls for different countries. E.G. one might allow uncontrolled immigration from Ireland, and zero immigration from Syria.

[King Cnut]

s2art said:

Amateurish said:

My point is that it is very easy to say that you want "controlled" immigration. The difficulty is defining precisely what those controls are. And does that involve "repatriating" EU migrants, as Mr Reckless recently said?

Australia, Canada etc seem to have no problem in defining precisely what the controls are, so why should we.
I imagine there will be some repatriation in the future as the system will be based upon work permits. Many already here will apply for residency, and most will get it.

So, tell us, what kind of people should be allowed in?

[s2art]

King said:

s2art said:

Amateurish said:

My point is that it is very easy to say that you want "controlled" immigration. The difficulty is defining precisely what those controls are. And does that involve "repatriating" EU migrants, as Mr Reckless recently said?

Australia, Canada etc seem to have no problem in defining precisely what the controls are, so why should we.
I imagine there will be some repatriation in the future as the system will be based upon work permits. Many already here will apply for residency, and most will get it.

So, tell us, what kind of people should be allowed in?

What sort of dumb question is that? The system would operate similarly to Australia's or Canada's, take a look at how they work.

[Amateurish]

s2art said:

Australia, Canada etc seem to have no problem in defining precisely what the controls are, so why should we.
I imagine there will be some repatriation in the future as the system will be based upon work permits. Many already here will apply for residency, and most will get it.

If you think that repatriating (some) EU immigrants is a good idea, then you might have to break some bad news to the 2m Brits living abroad in the EU!

[sidicks]

Amateurish said:

Why is it "meaningless"? It is totally reasonable to have different immigration controls for different countries. E.G. one might allow uncontrolled immigration from Ireland, and zero immigration from Syria.

Because the value from immigration comes from the functions that these people can do, not what country they are from.

[s2art]

Amateurish said:

s2art said:

Australia, Canada etc seem to have no problem in defining precisely what the controls are, so why should we.
I imagine there will be some repatriation in the future as the system will be based upon work permits. Many already here will apply for residency, and most will get it.

If you think that repatriating (some) EU immigrants is a good idea, then you might have to break some bad news to the 2m Brits living abroad in the EU!

What would happen is subject to the agreements made between the UK and the rEU. Best bet is that they would be able to apply for residency if they so desired, and most would get it. Others would apply for work permits in advance of applying for residency, and, if in work, most would get them. This is no different to what goes on now for non-EU citizens in various member states.

[Countdown]

sidicks said:

Because the value from immigration comes from the functions that these people can do, not what country they are from.

Sounds great. Indian restaurant owners are crying out for "chefs".

ETA I know our place is looking for IT people - bound to be cheaper if we can get them from India.

[King Cnut]

s2art said:

What sort of dumb question is that? The system would operate similarly to Australia's or Canada's, take a look at how they work.

No, it isn't a dumb question. Until UKIP nails down precisely the type of people it wishes to limit immigration to, it's immigration policy can't be assessed. Just saying it'll be 'like Canada's or Australia's is a cop out.

It's time for UKIP to produce hard policy detail, not airy fairy wish lists.