UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
Greg66 said:
Axionknight said:
Greg66 said:
That is one hardcore nutjob website right there.
Nothing to say about the allegations made in the article?Who has done, err, nothing.
So yes, whilst online harassment or whatever you want to call it isn't pleasant, so far this appears to be work of a sole nutter with a keyboard and an internet connection, and appears unlikely to escalate further.
And if you decide to pursue a career as a Brietbart (ie hardcore nutjob website) columnist, perhaps you shouldn't be surprised if you attact some attention from the hardcore nutjobs at the other end of the spectrum. One lot is like catnip to the other, and vice versa.
Hardly Crime of the Century though.
The attacks on other ukip supporters, former members, MEPs, property etc have not been performed by a lone nutter.
This is why I think it is so irresponsible of the other three main parties leaders to remain silent and not ensure that these unpleasant individuals are clear that the acts they commit are not in their name. Remaining silent and refusing to criticise might suit them now, but it sets a poor intolerant democratic principle.
I should add there was an amusing unpleasant message to a conservative home journalist this morning Mark Wallace. The usual sort of thing, scum - should be buried with rats etc.. He had incorrectly thought he was ukip, but upon being corrected he apologised, whilst some said that they admired his attempt to troll ukip but needs to check who it is first! It should be unacceptable regardless..
Axionknight said:
Greg66 said:
It sounds like some "grassroots" UKIP supporters would like to see immigrants sterilsed. Stay classy, UKIP grassroots supporters!
It doesn't sound like that at all does it?It's a nonsense. Every party has numpties, but the conservatives, labour and the main media seem desperate to generalise those individuals in UKIP as entirely representative... imagine if Grant Shapps, or Diane Abbotts statements were held as representative of all conservatives or labour
Axionknight said:
Greg66 said:
It sounds like some "grassroots" UKIP supporters would like to see immigrants sterilsed. Stay classy, UKIP grassroots supporters!
It doesn't sound like that at all does it?To me it sounds like they are unhappy at that pesky immigrant habit of breeding. On their adopted soil, no less.
Take your pick of the ways that can be addressed.
(Whilst it could be interpreted as a complaint about a further strain on infrastructure, that's about as plausible as the film "Speed" being a scathing indictment of the shortcomings in public transport in urban Los Angeles. It's rather more likely that this was just a complaint about numbers. Plain and simple).
brenflys777 said:
Unfortunately the typical conservative/labour/lib response has been to belittle UKIP voters concerns, or accuse them of being idiots or racists. Whilst clumsily put, if this persons concerns are about the volume of immigration and the ability of infrastructure to cope with the rate of increase in population, then the fact immigrant groups tend to have higher birth rates will actually add to the problem.
I'm a good case in point with an immigrant family background and five kids of my own. When my dad arrived the country was short of unskilled Labour, now it appears we have a surplus, but no ability to reduce immigration from within the EU... unless the country becomes unattractive. Can the country cope with 300000 net migration - if so why do Labour tell Northern working class voters they'll reduce it and the conservatives say it will be reduced to the tens of thousands?
Why do you suggest we have a surplus?I'm a good case in point with an immigrant family background and five kids of my own. When my dad arrived the country was short of unskilled Labour, now it appears we have a surplus, but no ability to reduce immigration from within the EU... unless the country becomes unattractive. Can the country cope with 300000 net migration - if so why do Labour tell Northern working class voters they'll reduce it and the conservatives say it will be reduced to the tens of thousands?
The % of the population in work is at a record high. Wages are rising
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/employment-rate...
Countdown said:
Scuffers said:
Lol!
So, say an American couple are in the UK and have a baby, is the child American or British?
Are the Americans applying for UK citizenship?So, say an American couple are in the UK and have a baby, is the child American or British?
An interesting article on immigration in The Guardian today:
Meanwhile re reading an older article in Spiked, it still seems as fresh as ever given the 'Kippers = simpletons' attitude espoused by many of the bien pensant that post on here.
Zoe Williams said:
Time and again, in industries where there is significant foreign labour, reports tell us that this is work “British people won’t do”... Whenever anyone ascribes some inherent characteristic – of sloth or unwillingness – to an entire race, even if it is your own, you should smell a rat. British people will do anything; but people are often reluctant to do work if they cannot live on the wages, and this drives the wages up, unless there is someone prepared to do it for less to escape a harsher economic reality elsewhere. In other words, anybody who can say in one breath “immigration doesn’t bring down wages” and, in the next, “this is work British people won’t do” is refusing to connect their own dots.
Immigration: the big issue that the left just can’t get rightMeanwhile re reading an older article in Spiked, it still seems as fresh as ever given the 'Kippers = simpletons' attitude espoused by many of the bien pensant that post on here.
Frank Furedi said:
It is said they are driven by resentment, or a desire to lash out against the political elites, or by their sense of helplessness before globalisation. They are portrayed as insecure individuals, suffering from a powerful and irrational fear – fear of others, fear of immigrants, fear for their national identity. And they are typically condemned as narrow-minded bigots or racists, embarrassing reminders of the prejudices of the bad old days.
The tendency to portray supporters of populist parties as simpletons is invariably combined with a view of the parties themselves as cynical exploiters of people’s grievances. At best, then, populist movements are seen in terms of a negative impulse, a backlash. The possibility that for many people voting for a right-wing populist party is a positive choice, and not just a protest, is rarely considered. Yet for many populist-party supporters, the decision to reject the established pro-EU mainstream parties is a positive move, an affirmation of a way of life.
The EU's Culture War Against The PeopleThe tendency to portray supporters of populist parties as simpletons is invariably combined with a view of the parties themselves as cynical exploiters of people’s grievances. At best, then, populist movements are seen in terms of a negative impulse, a backlash. The possibility that for many people voting for a right-wing populist party is a positive choice, and not just a protest, is rarely considered. Yet for many populist-party supporters, the decision to reject the established pro-EU mainstream parties is a positive move, an affirmation of a way of life.
JustAnotherLogin said:
brenflys777 said:
Unfortunately the typical conservative/labour/lib response has been to belittle UKIP voters concerns, or accuse them of being idiots or racists. Whilst clumsily put, if this persons concerns are about the volume of immigration and the ability of infrastructure to cope with the rate of increase in population, then the fact immigrant groups tend to have higher birth rates will actually add to the problem.
I'm a good case in point with an immigrant family background and five kids of my own. When my dad arrived the country was short of unskilled Labour, now it appears we have a surplus, but no ability to reduce immigration from within the EU... unless the country becomes unattractive. Can the country cope with 300000 net migration - if so why do Labour tell Northern working class voters they'll reduce it and the conservatives say it will be reduced to the tens of thousands?
Why do you suggest we have a surplus?I'm a good case in point with an immigrant family background and five kids of my own. When my dad arrived the country was short of unskilled Labour, now it appears we have a surplus, but no ability to reduce immigration from within the EU... unless the country becomes unattractive. Can the country cope with 300000 net migration - if so why do Labour tell Northern working class voters they'll reduce it and the conservatives say it will be reduced to the tens of thousands?
The % of the population in work is at a record high. Wages are rising
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/employment-rate...
The current govt. has attempted to crack down on the ability for lazy or feckless individuals to just fester on benefits, but like the 'bedroom tax' I think they have failed to ensure the people involved have an alternative carrot before they apply the stick.
The wage rises you talk of aren't reflective of my industry, which is another good example of oversupply of applicants reducing the cost to companies and the opportunities for local candidates. Things might be improving nationally but in the Midlands I've heard little anecdotally of improvement.
BGARK said:
Countdown said:
Yes.
If you apply for Chinese citizenship and it is granted then all of you, including the child, will have Chinese nationality.
Chinese citizenship or any piece of paper will not make the child Chinese. Unless the piece of paper contains a magic spell.If you apply for Chinese citizenship and it is granted then all of you, including the child, will have Chinese nationality.
Thankfully they didn't emigrate to Jamaica (I don't like the heat and mossies love me..although the music and food…
) but if they had I'd be Jamaican. brenflys777 said:
I'm sure the situation is different in different parts of the country, but locally to me, we still have areas where young, lower skilled/trained Brits are remaining unemployed because they are unattractive to businesses who have no shortage of better qualified (overqualified?) and more motivated foreign applicants. The benefit to businesses is tangible, but as we still pay for these Brits to sit on benefits it causes problems IMO.
The current govt. has attempted to crack down on the ability for lazy or feckless individuals to just fester on benefits, but like the 'bedroom tax' I think they have failed to ensure the people involved have an alternative carrot before they apply the stick.
The wage rises you talk of aren't reflective of my industry, which is another good example of oversupply of applicants reducing the cost to companies and the opportunities for local candidates. Things might be improving nationally but in the Midlands I've heard little anecdotally of improvement.
I think it was Tebbit's phrase "Get on your bike"The current govt. has attempted to crack down on the ability for lazy or feckless individuals to just fester on benefits, but like the 'bedroom tax' I think they have failed to ensure the people involved have an alternative carrot before they apply the stick.
The wage rises you talk of aren't reflective of my industry, which is another good example of oversupply of applicants reducing the cost to companies and the opportunities for local candidates. Things might be improving nationally but in the Midlands I've heard little anecdotally of improvement.
Now there is a name that should gladden the hearts of our kippers
JustAnotherLogin said:
Why do you suggest we have a surplus?
The % of the population in work is at a record high. Wages are rising
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/employment-rate...
Are you bipolar or just having a laugh? 5.7% today, while good cannot compare to 1.3% in 1951. You will agree that % in work is the reciprocal of % unemployed.The % of the population in work is at a record high. Wages are rising
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/employment-rate...
yesterday JustAnotherLogin said:
Every govt since 1945 of every party has left office with unemployment higher than when they first took power
'Though there is of course a risk that this govt breaks the pattern in a big way with unemployment well down on when they took over and the polls looking very iffy
I replied:
I am not sure why you addressed this to me but I am interested in your claim.
(Of course, starting from a very low base post war, universal benefits allows the unemployed numbers to grow and governments are usually kicked out when the voters loose confidence in their economic ability)
Using the best stats I can find but accepting they may not all be calculated on the same basis
Do you mean a change of party rather than after each term in office?
Labour was in power 1945- 1951 - unemployment 1.3% in '45 stayed at 1.3% in '51
Then Conservatives to 1964 - unemployment 1.7%
Labour till 1970 - unemployment 2.7%
Then Conservatives to 1974 - unemployment 2.6%
Labour till 1979 - unemployment 5.7%
Then Conservatives to 1997 - unemployment 7.134%
Labour till 2010 - unemployment 7.858%
Now the Coalition - unemployment 5.7%
So not quite true - in '74 and now, the rate is lower.'
NicD said:
Are you bipolar or just having a laugh? 5.7% today, while good cannot compare to 1.3% in 1951. You will agree that % in work is the reciprocal of % unemployed.
yesterday JustAnotherLogin said:
Every govt since 1945 of every party has left office with unemployment higher than when they first took power
'Though there is of course a risk that this govt breaks the pattern in a big way with unemployment well down on when they took over and the polls looking very iffy
I replied:
I am not sure why you addressed this to me but I am interested in your claim.
(Of course, starting from a very low base post war, universal benefits allows the unemployed numbers to grow and governments are usually kicked out when the voters loose confidence in their economic ability)
Using the best stats I can find but accepting they may not all be calculated on the same basis
Do you mean a change of party rather than after each term in office?
Labour was in power 1945- 1951 - unemployment 1.3% in '45 stayed at 1.3% in '51
Then Conservatives to 1964 - unemployment 1.7%
Labour till 1970 - unemployment 2.7%
Then Conservatives to 1974 - unemployment 2.6%
Labour till 1979 - unemployment 5.7%
Then Conservatives to 1997 - unemployment 7.134%
Labour till 2010 - unemployment 7.858%
Now the Coalition - unemployment 5.7%
So not quite true - in '74 and now, the rate is lower.'
I meant on change in party, that was my understanding, but if memory serves it was on number unemployed rather than %. yesterday JustAnotherLogin said:
Every govt since 1945 of every party has left office with unemployment higher than when they first took power
'Though there is of course a risk that this govt breaks the pattern in a big way with unemployment well down on when they took over and the polls looking very iffy
I replied:
I am not sure why you addressed this to me but I am interested in your claim.
(Of course, starting from a very low base post war, universal benefits allows the unemployed numbers to grow and governments are usually kicked out when the voters loose confidence in their economic ability)
Using the best stats I can find but accepting they may not all be calculated on the same basis
Do you mean a change of party rather than after each term in office?
Labour was in power 1945- 1951 - unemployment 1.3% in '45 stayed at 1.3% in '51
Then Conservatives to 1964 - unemployment 1.7%
Labour till 1970 - unemployment 2.7%
Then Conservatives to 1974 - unemployment 2.6%
Labour till 1979 - unemployment 5.7%
Then Conservatives to 1997 - unemployment 7.134%
Labour till 2010 - unemployment 7.858%
Now the Coalition - unemployment 5.7%
So not quite true - in '74 and now, the rate is lower.'
And no, unemployment is not reciprocal of unemployed
Unemployment rate= % seeking work /(% seeking work + % in work)
Employment rate=% in work /population
The reason the two are significantly different is that now far more women are in work or seeking work than in 1951
So the employment rate is much higher, even though unemployment rate is also higher.
No attempt to mislead, it has been all over the media the last few days. nevertheless it shows there are lots of jobs out there for people prepared to work. Unless you are going to blame female emancipation for not being able to find a job?
JustAnotherLogin said:
NicD said:
Are you bipolar or just having a laugh? 5.7% today, while good cannot compare to 1.3% in 1951. You will agree that % in work is the reciprocal of % unemployed.
yesterday JustAnotherLogin said:
Every govt since 1945 of every party has left office with unemployment higher than when they first took power
'Though there is of course a risk that this govt breaks the pattern in a big way with unemployment well down on when they took over and the polls looking very iffy
I replied:
I am not sure why you addressed this to me but I am interested in your claim.
(Of course, starting from a very low base post war, universal benefits allows the unemployed numbers to grow and governments are usually kicked out when the voters loose confidence in their economic ability)
Using the best stats I can find but accepting they may not all be calculated on the same basis
Do you mean a change of party rather than after each term in office?
Labour was in power 1945- 1951 - unemployment 1.3% in '45 stayed at 1.3% in '51
Then Conservatives to 1964 - unemployment 1.7%
Labour till 1970 - unemployment 2.7%
Then Conservatives to 1974 - unemployment 2.6%
Labour till 1979 - unemployment 5.7%
Then Conservatives to 1997 - unemployment 7.134%
Labour till 2010 - unemployment 7.858%
Now the Coalition - unemployment 5.7%
So not quite true - in '74 and now, the rate is lower.'
I meant on change in party, that was my understanding, but if memory serves it was on number unemployed rather than %. yesterday JustAnotherLogin said:
Every govt since 1945 of every party has left office with unemployment higher than when they first took power
'Though there is of course a risk that this govt breaks the pattern in a big way with unemployment well down on when they took over and the polls looking very iffy
I replied:
I am not sure why you addressed this to me but I am interested in your claim.
(Of course, starting from a very low base post war, universal benefits allows the unemployed numbers to grow and governments are usually kicked out when the voters loose confidence in their economic ability)
Using the best stats I can find but accepting they may not all be calculated on the same basis
Do you mean a change of party rather than after each term in office?
Labour was in power 1945- 1951 - unemployment 1.3% in '45 stayed at 1.3% in '51
Then Conservatives to 1964 - unemployment 1.7%
Labour till 1970 - unemployment 2.7%
Then Conservatives to 1974 - unemployment 2.6%
Labour till 1979 - unemployment 5.7%
Then Conservatives to 1997 - unemployment 7.134%
Labour till 2010 - unemployment 7.858%
Now the Coalition - unemployment 5.7%
So not quite true - in '74 and now, the rate is lower.'
And no, unemployment is not reciprocal of unemployed
Unemployment rate= % seeking work /(% seeking work + % in work)
Employment rate=% in work /population
The reason the two are significantly different is that now far more women are in work or seeking work than in 1951
So the employment rate is much higher, even though unemployment rate is also higher.
No attempt to mislead, it has been all over the media the last few days. nevertheless it shows there are lots of jobs out there for people prepared to work. Unless you are going to blame female emancipation for not being able to find a job?
Employment Rate definition : The percentage of the labour force that is employed.
BGARK said:
Countdown said:
Scuffers said:
Lol!
So, say an American couple are in the UK and have a baby, is the child American or British?
Are the Americans applying for UK citizenship?So, say an American couple are in the UK and have a baby, is the child American or British?
It is highly likely in the case that British ex-pats have a child in China and send it to an International/British school, that that child will be much more British than Chinese. This is especially the case if they've brought the child up in the knowledge that at some point they will go 'home' (and if they visit Grandma yearly at 'home').
If a British couple go to China with the intention of making it their home and never leave, make an effort to fit in with local people, and send their child to a Chinese school, then the child will be far more Chinese than British.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff