UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
Greg66 said:
And would reduce tax receipts, whilst not doing a single thing to reduce the fixed overheads of things like "roads/schools/NHS/etc".
Do you ever think before you type? I mean, I like listening to a stream of consciousness as much as the next man, but it would be nice to stumble across a coherent thought once in a while.
what tax receipts?Do you ever think before you type? I mean, I like listening to a stream of consciousness as much as the next man, but it would be nice to stumble across a coherent thought once in a while.
or are you going to cling onto the much discredited LSE report about immigrants being a net economic benefit
Scuffers said:
why?
what is wrong with a non-growing population?
Bill didn't say growing population, he said stable. Stable means neither up nor down. However, if our birth rate declined significantly, it would be a big problem because much of our society is financed by tax paid by working people. As a population ages, it needs younger people to look after those becoming more and more aged, both in society and for instance in the NHS. What's your solution to all those people getting older? If we don't keep up with the birth rate, should we perhaps cull all people over a certain age, Logan's Run style?what is wrong with a non-growing population?
Scuffers said:
TKF said:
So what we need is some kind of, what's the word, eugenics?
EUGENICS
no, just some sensible border control and government policies.EUGENICS
why do you feel the need to bring up some sinister connotation to all this?
or is it a case of trying to tar UKIP with the Nazi theme again?
I've just done a quick survey of entirely fictional respondents and I'm sorry to say that Scuffers and MGJohn have taken an absolute pounding in the polls today. They've been responsible for a massive swing toward staying in the EU with over 89% stating today's events have made them feel lucky that UKIP have no real power.
Extraordinary scenes today. Democracy in action.
Extraordinary scenes today. Democracy in action.
Disastrous said:
I've just done a quick survey of entirely fictional respondents and I'm sorry to say that Scuffers and MGJohn have taken an absolute pounding in the polls today. They've been responsible for a massive swing toward staying in the EU with over 89% stating today's events have made them feel lucky that UKIP have no real power.
Extraordinary scenes today. Democracy in action.
It's no good telling us about this good news without making at least even a small attempt at making up the cost of the referendum.Extraordinary scenes today. Democracy in action.
A poor attempt at bulls
t! Lets hope you can redeem yourself over the next five pages by avoiding questions and requests of proof.NoNeed said:
Disastrous said:
I've just done a quick survey of entirely fictional respondents and I'm sorry to say that Scuffers and MGJohn have taken an absolute pounding in the polls today. They've been responsible for a massive swing toward staying in the EU with over 89% stating today's events have made them feel lucky that UKIP have no real power.
Extraordinary scenes today. Democracy in action.
It's no good telling us about this good news without making at least even a small attempt at making up the cost of the referendum.Extraordinary scenes today. Democracy in action.
A poor attempt at bulls
t! Lets hope you can redeem yourself over the next five pages by avoiding questions and requests of proof.One word - GUADELOUPE
Scuffers said:
Greg66 said:
And would reduce tax receipts, whilst not doing a single thing to reduce the fixed overheads of things like "roads/schools/NHS/etc".
Do you ever think before you type? I mean, I like listening to a stream of consciousness as much as the next man, but it would be nice to stumble across a coherent thought once in a while.
what tax receipts?Do you ever think before you type? I mean, I like listening to a stream of consciousness as much as the next man, but it would be nice to stumble across a coherent thought once in a while.
or are you going to cling onto the much discredited LSE report about immigrants being a net economic benefit
t. Pop of UK is currently about 65m (don't bore me again with the Tesco guesses). You said you wanted it down to 55m.
So removal of about 10m people.
You want to keep tax receipts up. So no removal of taxpayers.
You seem to claim that immigrants have no net economic benefit to the country.
Number of immigrants in this country in 2011: 7.5m. Say close to 10m now.
So that's the 10m you'd have removed. Forcibly repatriate, if you will.
Nice.
How prominent are your BNP tattoos, by the way?
FiF said:
Is anybody in any numbers actually saying that? I interpret the supposed "send-em-back" policy as pull up the drawbridges, nobody else, no exceptions and send back the rest, not sure who the rest is, but anyway.
I thought that what was being suggested was a "we are where we are" stance and then trying to shift policy so that we have more control on who settles here, combined with changes to the welfare state to reduce the pull from overseas of low skilled workers and to get the people already here wherever they are from off benefits by various means. That will necessarily be a long term task over more than one Parliament one suggests.
Perhaps there is somebody somewhere saying send em all back. That's setting aside the work of the Borders and Immigration shower, whatever they're called this week, in dealing with genuine illegals with no valid claim for asylum, which suppose that is a send em back policy on a very closely defined subset.
Now if I've missed it please point it out because I haven't seen any mass call for send em back. Of course there have been studies which show a vast majority of the population think that immigration is too high, 76% iirc. Also a majority of allethnic groups. Tbh This phone is useless when it comes to posting links mid post, let me know if you want links to those studies and will try and sort something out.
THe thing is, nobody is talking about anything you have said.I thought that what was being suggested was a "we are where we are" stance and then trying to shift policy so that we have more control on who settles here, combined with changes to the welfare state to reduce the pull from overseas of low skilled workers and to get the people already here wherever they are from off benefits by various means. That will necessarily be a long term task over more than one Parliament one suggests.
Perhaps there is somebody somewhere saying send em all back. That's setting aside the work of the Borders and Immigration shower, whatever they're called this week, in dealing with genuine illegals with no valid claim for asylum, which suppose that is a send em back policy on a very closely defined subset.
Now if I've missed it please point it out because I haven't seen any mass call for send em back. Of course there have been studies which show a vast majority of the population think that immigration is too high, 76% iirc. Also a majority of allethnic groups. Tbh This phone is useless when it comes to posting links mid post, let me know if you want links to those studies and will try and sort something out.
The things you say are normal and I don't really understand why you associate yourself with the average UKIP voter, and the comments of other people on this thread
I could go out with any friend with your kind of rationale and have a perfectly rational conversation full of comments like yours which are not anti-immigration at all, but just measured discussions about getting a correct balance for our country. And we would conclude that yes, it would be nice to ease the volume of immigrant unskilled labour just a little, and reduce benefits just a little which would slightly inflate the labour rates and reduce the motivation to stay at home, whilst increasing the willingness of corporations to train. There would be a little inflation but as long as we used monetary policy to keep it in check that would be nice. We would also then accept that this is impossible and not that easy. Either in/out of Europe and the potential ghastly consequences and we cant have someone realistically accurately headcounting the correct people at immigration. So we would finish that conversation and have slightly different opinions about Europe etc THis is not the same as this thread and you are not the same as the majority of UKIP voters (the likes of which can be seen here) and for the life of me I cannot comprehend why you are so eager to have the association
So no, YOU have never discussed a 'send 'em back' policy but do you think the other rabid lunatics on this thread are discussing any kind of policies at all? (in fairness I would probably exclude PTVR from that insult- he is similar)
Edited by blindswelledrat on Thursday 4th June 16:20
Scuffers said:
no, why do you want to sustain the ever growing population?
or do you subscribe to the great pyramid scheme of having more young to pay for the old?
we could do with reducing the population back to the 55-55M figure, this would relieve a lot of the pressured on everything from roads/schools/NHS/etc. to housing.
on a global scale, the world's population is already well over 7Bn, it's simply unsustainable to keep on like this.
A substantial part of that population expansion is due to people living longer. And the infrastructure they need needs paying for. So, as they have retired, where do you plan to get the money from?or do you subscribe to the great pyramid scheme of having more young to pay for the old?
we could do with reducing the population back to the 55-55M figure, this would relieve a lot of the pressured on everything from roads/schools/NHS/etc. to housing.
on a global scale, the world's population is already well over 7Bn, it's simply unsustainable to keep on like this.
968 said:
Scuffers said:
no, why do you want to sustain the ever growing population?
or do you subscribe to the great pyramid scheme of having more young to pay for the old?
we could do with reducing the population back to the 55-55M figure, this would relieve a lot of the pressured on everything from roads/schools/NHS/etc. to housing.
on a global scale, the world's population is already well over 7Bn, it's simply unsustainable to keep on like this.
Again, being thick, I might be simplistic here but isn't it a good idea to have a society that isn't constantly ageing? I'm sure Bill said in order to have a STABLE population we need a higher birth rate than we have.or do you subscribe to the great pyramid scheme of having more young to pay for the old?
we could do with reducing the population back to the 55-55M figure, this would relieve a lot of the pressured on everything from roads/schools/NHS/etc. to housing.
on a global scale, the world's population is already well over 7Bn, it's simply unsustainable to keep on like this.
There are only 3 ways of supporting an aging population:
1. Immigrations.
2. The indigenous population start breeding much faster.
3. You start culling the elderly.
968 said:
PRTVR said:
The point I was trying to make was that they may be a tipping point that creates that condition in the future, as with Greece running out of money, to move to another country away from everybody you know is a big step, but if things get bad people will move, then how do we cope?
Maybe, but as Strawman points out, the situation is improving in some EU countries and the apocalypse hasn't happened yet, despite the dire situation of some EU economies, including Greece. He's also right to say that pessimism creates the conditions for negativity.What is your view on the people coming across from Africa, should we stop them or should we just have an open door policy?
PRTVR said:
But ignoring a problem will not make it go away, take Greece, there is reports that they have taken on 600 more cleaners for the parliament building, positive action, no negativity there, will it help their financial situation?
What is your view on the people coming across from Africa, should we stop them or should we just have an open door policy?
No ignoring a problem won't make it go away, and yet, despite how dire Greece is, and the more examples of it's direness, it still hasn't led to a tsunami of tzatziki and houmous accompanying the hordes of Greeks into the UK. What is your view on the people coming across from Africa, should we stop them or should we just have an open door policy?
Africa has precisely nothing to do with this entire discussion, since they are not a part of the EU and consequently are subject to the same checks and balances of all non-EU migrants. But addressing your question, why does the choice have to be so binary and use such emotive language? Stop them or open door? How about controlled immigration from Africa?
968 said:
Scuffers said:
why?
what is wrong with a non-growing population?
Bill didn't say growing population, he said stable. Stable means neither up nor down. However, if our birth rate declined significantly, it would be a big problem because much of our society is financed by tax paid by working people. As a population ages, it needs younger people to look after those becoming more and more aged, both in society and for instance in the NHS. What's your solution to all those people getting older? If we don't keep up with the birth rate, should we perhaps cull all people over a certain age, Logan's Run style?what is wrong with a non-growing population?
Scuffers said:
that's kind of ignoring the simple act that the current situation is the population is growing rapidly and has been since open-door immigration in the mid-1990's
Perhaps, but you seem to be ignoring that the population is rapidly ageing and not being replaced in proportion. As I say, how do we deal with this? Kill the elderly?968 said:
Scuffers said:
that's kind of ignoring the simple act that the current situation is the population is growing rapidly and has been since open-door immigration in the mid-1990's
Perhaps, but you seem to be ignoring that the population is rapidly ageing and not being replaced in proportion. As I say, how do we deal with this? Kill the elderly?may I remind you that it's only the top few % of taxpaying people in this country that really contribute the vast majority of the cash.
Adding millions of minimum wage people in at the bottom does nothing to address the monetary issue with supporting the retired, and in all probability, actually makes it worse.
Long term, all your doing is stoking up a pyramid scheme
Bill said:
Scuffers said:
no, why do you want to sustain the ever growing population?
or do you subscribe to the great pyramid scheme of having more young to pay for the old?
we could do with reducing the population back to the 55-55M figure, this would relieve a lot of the pressured on everything from roads/schools/NHS/etc. to housing.
on a global scale, the world's population is already well over 7Bn, it's simply unsustainable to keep on like this.
A substantial part of that population expansion is due to people living longer. And the infrastructure they need needs paying for. So, as they have retired, where do you plan to get the money from?or do you subscribe to the great pyramid scheme of having more young to pay for the old?
we could do with reducing the population back to the 55-55M figure, this would relieve a lot of the pressured on everything from roads/schools/NHS/etc. to housing.
on a global scale, the world's population is already well over 7Bn, it's simply unsustainable to keep on like this.
Another who believes we are all living longer. Tell the people something often enough and they'll believe.
Our life expectancy in the UK is just above Cuba.
Now go into a dark corner and think about it. Population expansion in this country is nothing to do with living longer.
Ask Charles Kennedy's family.
dandarez said:
Another who believes we are all living longer. Tell the people something often enough and they'll believe.
Our life expectancy in the UK is just above Cuba.
Now go into a dark corner and think about it. Population expansion in this country is nothing to do with living longer.
Ask Charles Kennedy's family.
We are living longer. Roughly 10yrs longer than we did 50yrs ago.Our life expectancy in the UK is just above Cuba.
Now go into a dark corner and think about it. Population expansion in this country is nothing to do with living longer.
Ask Charles Kennedy's family.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff