UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[Scuffers]

Zod said:

Very little. It's the Saudis.

Nothing like as much as it used to be.

These days, the us hedgefunds and banks have more influence.

[don4l]

TKF said:

btw this Australian points system everyone raves about, has anyone tried it? I can only just get in despite a degree and a well paid job. Would anyone else pass it today? Would Don have passed it given his circumstances in 1970's?

Yes, as others have explained to you, it was easy to emigrate to Australia in the 1970's.

I don't meet current requirements because I am too old.

Do you meet their immigration requirements?

[Strawman]

don4l said:

Yes, as others have explained to you, it was easy to emigrate to Australia in the 1970's

When Farrage el al are referring to introducing a Australians type visa system for the UK they are referring to the current system not whatever was in place in the 1970's (seems to have been "are you white and breathing then yes that is a pass") why pretend otherwise? Imagine for a moment Don 1941 that you were 30 would you pass the current system that UKIP would like in force? TKF has pasted a handy link and everything.

[steveT350C]

imkihgrashun? Meh

Unless I am very mistaken immigration is just one part of the big EU in/out question.

We know UKIP are 90% 'out'. The other 10% accounts for CMD securing massive Sovereign Power transfer back to UK, and indeed all Sovereign countries - in effect a return to the 'free trade' idea; that was in fact a lie anyway.

The Tories could well split down the in/out line. Lib under Clegg said no to referendum, as did Lab under willygland

CBI and the BBC have between them received £millions from the EU.

JCB boss has spoken, saying Brexit not all doom and gloom.

Now this.......


'Dr Nigel Wilson, chief executive of insurance giant Legal & General, became the first boss of a FTSE 100 company to publicly suggest quitting the EU.

He said the UK economy is ‘underachieving’ by focusing too much on Europe rather than faster growing markets.'

Edited by steveT350C on Wednesday 27th May 21:49

Edited by steveT350C on Wednesday 27th May 21:51

[NicD]

steveT350C said:

It's an 'Australian type' immigration system that UKIP are proposing, based on...........

current UK requirements.

The key point is that immigrants useful to the country (or county/city) would be encouraged. Novel concept perhaps to some on here.

[steveT350C]

NicD said:

steveT350C said:

It's an 'Australian type' immigration system that UKIP are proposing, based on...........

current UK requirements.

The key point is that immigrants useful to the country (or county/city) would be encouraged. Novel concept perhaps to some on here.

The last wave of immigrants encouraged by the Labour Party was not for the benefit of the country / ordinary working folk but orchestrated by Labour to 'rub the noses of the Tories' and massively increase the number of likely Labour voters.

[steveT350C]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

EU - no control.

Turkey next. Happy?

[eharding]

steveT350C said:

Turkey next. Happy?

Delighted.

[NicD]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

At least one difference was in my answer. One of the Australian categories was to address skill shortages in specific locations. The applicants had to spend the initial period working in the city or state they applied for.

[AW111]

steveT350C said:

The last wave of immigrants encouraged by the Labour Party was not for the benefit of the country / ordinary working folk but orchestrated by Labour to 'rub the noses of the Tories' and massively increase the number of likely Labour voters.

Look, you hate Labour : that's ok.
To assume they orchestrated a wave of immigrants to increase the number of Labour voters is tinfoil hat time.

[MGJohn]

steveT350C said:

NicD said:

steveT350C said:

It's an 'Australian type' immigration system that UKIP are proposing, based on...........

current UK requirements.

The key point is that immigrants useful to the country (or county/city) would be encouraged. Novel concept perhaps to some on here.

The last wave of immigrants encouraged by the Labour Party was not for the benefit of the country / ordinary working folk but orchestrated by Labour to 'rub the noses of the Tories' and massively increase the number of likely Labour voters.

I have suspected that for a good few years now.

Witness numerous encouragements to breed motivated by their belief that additional Labour voters will result.

That is high on my list of reasons why I am unlikely to vote Labour ever again whereas in the past I was both happy and pleased to do so.

[NicD]

AW111 said:

Look, you hate Labour : that's ok.
To assume they orchestrated a wave of immigrants to increase the number of Labour voters is tinfoil hat time.

Oh yes, really? Try this then, and then eat your ill advised metaphor

'Incredible. I am stunned. Back in October Andrew Neather, a former Labour party speechwriter, let the cat out the bag when he said that the Government had encouraged immigration “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity”. But while Neather quickly backtracked, documents now released under the Freedom of Information Act suggest that he was telling the truth. Rather than being the result only of incompetence or a short-term economic measure to reduce inflation, Labour’s policy of runaway immigration was a deliberate and cynical attempt to change the face of British society.
The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title “Migration: an economic and social analysis” but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to “social objectives”.
The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase — “if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s economic and social objectives” — was edited out.
Another deleted phrase suggested that it was “correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy”.
Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said the document showed that Mr Neather, who claimed ministers wanted to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, had been correct in his account of Labour’s immigration policy.'
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100025635...

[steveT350C]

MGJohn said:

steveT350C said:

NicD said:

steveT350C said:

It's an 'Australian type' immigration system that UKIP are proposing, based on...........

current UK requirements.

The key point is that immigrants useful to the country (or county/city) would be encouraged. Novel concept perhaps to some on here.

The last wave of immigrants encouraged by the Labour Party was not for the benefit of the country / ordinary working folk but orchestrated by Labour to 'rub the noses of the Tories' and massively increase the number of likely Labour voters.

I have suspected that for a good few years now.

Witness numerous encouragements to breed motivated by their belief that additional Labour voters will result.

That is high on my list of reasons why I am unlikely to vote Labour ever again whereas in the past I was both happy and pleased to do so.

No need to suspect, actually what labour did.

Bordering on treason, but then Tony Blair sorted that little law out as well.

All links are way back in this thread. Bloody annoyed, should have backed up, but easy enough to find via giggle

Edited by steveT350C on Wednesday 27th May 22:21

[Halb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multicu...

Labour tried to sow the seeds of destruction for the Torys. Yet now, it looks like Labour are on the out.

[steveT350C]

Lord Mandelson’s remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain.

Mr Neather said the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Lo...

[TKF]

So Labour deliberately imported immigrants to win the election? They lost in 2010 according to my notes. And as we're constantly reminded the Tories increased immigration in the past 5yrs. I'll have to check my notes again but I'm pretty sure Labour lost again recently.

Seriously do you people not see how laughable your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories sound?

[steveT350C]

Brexit? i.e. Britain's exit from the 'EU'. note, nothing to do with Europe, just the 'EU'

So......... Sir James Dyson, Lord Bamford (the JCB chairman), and now the CEO of Legal & General, Dr Nigel Wilson. http://t.co/q7So1NCgx9 …

[MGJohn]

TKF said:

So Labour deliberately imported immigrants to win the election? They lost in 2010 according to my notes. And as we're constantly reminded the Tories increased immigration in the past 5yrs. I'll have to check my notes again but I'm pretty sure Labour lost again recently.

Seriously do you people not see how laughable your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories sound?

You cannot be serious but, suspect you are in a seriously duped and deluded way.

The only really laughable thing on this thread is your repeated acts as a bovine excrement stirring vendor.

What is is about the word Unsustainable that you obviously have such a severe blind spot for?

The Tories did NOT increase immigration in the past five years. They along with Labour previously, allowed it to increase with no sign of any control as part of their joint failure to address the more serious aspects of the UK's membership of the UK. Immigration is simply one of those aspects.

Even the Tories admit our "recovery" is fragile and easily upset. They've "bigged" it up which was a foolish thing to do. Who knows in these days and more days of spin overload formerly known as propaganda. That recovery may or may not in reality be genuine, but, our EU "partners" see it as a strong reality and penalise us for such magnificent success... A success they see as only resulting from our EU membership. That whilst at the same time insisting we throw ever wider the non-existent doors of immigration control.

In addition to the word Unsustainable, we can add the similar word... Unobtainable as will almost certainly be the case in the huge waste of both effort and time by the end of 2017. The only way to rid the UK of both those words is by a nice big X alongside OUT if and when the bovine excrement is at an end and we really do have a simple IN-OUT choice.

In or Out there will be some winners and some losers. However, we must keep in mind the longer term. Simply being "alright now" for some is not good enough if the rest of the Nation is far from alright.

Otherwise ... as you were. It's what we do so very well as a Nation in recent decades... get it wrong and get taken as right mugs by so many.

I live in hope of a genuine change for the better. I like a bet now and again and won a few quid on the GE. I will not risk one thin dime or penny that pre or post-Referendum, this Nation will be better for the result worth a jot. It's what we do so well... get it wrong whatever the outcome and the EU will smirk and settle down ... as you were style.

Be delighted to be proven wrong.. As I said, I live in hope.

You can bank on that but, only if we had a bank we can trust nowdays.

Still.. why should I give a damn ? I'm alright .... for now.

Edited by MGJohn on Thursday 28th May 00:03

[Mr_B]

TKF said:

So Labour deliberately imported immigrants to win the election? They lost in 2010 according to my notes. And as we're constantly reminded the Tories increased immigration in the past 5yrs. I'll have to check my notes again but I'm pretty sure Labour lost again recently.

Seriously do you people not see how laughable your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories sound?

Their aim/reasoning is not undone by the result. Besides which importing immigrants in the short term wasn't going to win them any election any times soon and most wouldn't be voting. Long term the stats say they are likely Labour voters. Labour had no care or cause to predict immigration of 13k a year and worry if they'd got it as hopessly wrong as they were proven to be.
If you don't understand the point, can you not just resort to saying 'tin foil hat' at every stage thinking that some how proves anything. I will say though it's a step up from the usual 'racist!' type replies meant to achieve the same thing.

Edited by Mr_B on Thursday 28th May 01:42

[Zod]

Scuffers said:

Zod said:

Very little. It's the Saudis.

Nothing like as much as it used to be.

These days, the us hedgefunds and banks have more influence.

You have no idea!.