Rochester By-Election. Consequences of UKIP Win on Tory/Lab
Discussion
Guam said:
WinstonWolf said:
No, but making a sweeping generalisation based on the colour of someone's skin is racist.
Its a well known fact that only us old white dudes can possibly be racist, or xenophobic, or sexist. Young people of other cultures and complexions are incapable of such things.Whats that you say Tribalism and the Caste System, they were imposed by us old white imperialist dudes innit
And lets not talk about Gangs in the US
oyster said:
Does it really matter whether a person comes from Bognor or Bangalore? If they do the job better, for less money then they should get the work?
So you pay the guy from Bangalore £200 less, but we need to see the total cost ?- we now pay £thousand+ a month benefits to the guy from Bogor
- A house needed for the Bangalore person, and we will probably pay him to afford to live in it (You are paying him less and that entitles him to top up benefits )
- Rent/Mortgage of new buyers increase as less housing to go around- costing them hundreds/thousands.
- Increase the NHS to cope with 1 more person
- Increase school places for his future kids at £6k per child per year
- If he can't speak english then £100s to the translators.
Unlimited migration is fine if they are all highly skilled/doing essential jobs with shortages. Once they are doing any old labourer type work then numbers have to be controlled.
Guam said:
Its a well known fact that only us old white dudes can possibly be racist, or xenophobic, or sexist. Young people of other cultures and complexions are incapable of such things.
Whats that you say Tribalism and the Caste System, they were imposed by us old white imperialist dudes innit
And lets not talk about Gangs in the US
Respect bro.Whats that you say Tribalism and the Caste System, they were imposed by us old white imperialist dudes innit
And lets not talk about Gangs in the US
Yazar said:
Unlimited migration is fine if they are all highly skilled/doing essential jobs with shortages. Once they are doing any old labourer type work then numbers have to be controlled.
Not at all. Unlimited of any sort allows criminals and warlords to enter. It also places unpredictable and un-budgeted strain on the whole country's infrastructure.Refugees aside, you need to check who's coming here and also to verify there is work for them and that they are not involved in activities which we do not want here. I'd argue that even in the case of those seeking asylum, they need to be vetted to ensure the persecutors are not arriving here along with the persecuted.
In the cold light of day, people are like any other commodity; useful only in the right quality and quantity.
Yazar said:
oyster said:
Does it really matter whether a person comes from Bognor or Bangalore? If they do the job better, for less money then they should get the work?
So you pay the guy from Bangalore £200 less, but we need to see the total cost ?- we now pay £thousand+ a month benefits to the guy from Bogor
- A house needed for the Bangalore person, and we will probably pay him to afford to live in it (You are paying him less and that entitles him to top up benefits )
- Rent/Mortgage of new buyers increase as less housing to go around- costing them hundreds/thousands.
- Increase the NHS to cope with 1 more person
- Increase school places for his future kids at £6k per child per year
- If he can't speak english then £100s to the translators.
Unlimited migration is fine if they are all highly skilled/doing essential jobs with shortages. Once they are doing any old labourer type work then numbers have to be controlled.
oyster said:
Reading the obsession some UKIP supporters have with protectionism makes me wonder whether they really are a free-market party after all.
Does it really matter whether a person comes from Bognor or Bangalore? If they do the job better, for less money then they should get the work?
Otherwise known as the race to the bottom and a sweatshop economy that makes a few people rich on the money earn't by exploiting the general workforce.Just like any other tin pot communist state.What it does prove is the stupidity in labour voters following the socialist workers of the world unite pro imnmigration ideology.Does it really matter whether a person comes from Bognor or Bangalore? If they do the job better, for less money then they should get the work?
WinstonWolf said:
No, but making a sweeping generalisation based on the colour of someone's skin is racist.
Is it?What if your sweeping generalisation was that all people of that ilk are brilliant/really nice/good looking?
Technically, I suppose that is still racist - or does it have to be negative?
I really shouldn't type as I think.....
JagLover said:
oyster said:
Does it really matter whether a person comes from Bognor or Bangalore? If they do the job better, for less money then they should get the work?
If we lived in a country of infinite space that might be true. We don't and we are already, in England, past optimum population density for standard of living. The UK as a whole had the lowest amount of floor space per dwelling in 15 European countries sampled. Welcome to a brave new world of the UK population driven into rabbit hutches for no apparent economic benefit.
Depressing wage rates while adding to the population means the worst of all worlds situation of a high population to keep housed and fed and social costs to match.Low disposable incomes mean low demand for manufactured goods and a low tax take to pay for those social costs.
The only people who benefit from that are those few who get rich from the profits of the exploitation of cheap labour.Just like any other communist state it is no surprise that they won't be buying their cars from the cheapest Indian or Chinese car manufacturer using the cheapest labour possible.
IE since when did Farage say that UKIP is just another Party out to run a communist style sweatshop economy.Having said that it seems obvious that is the CBI agenda and Farage seems no different to all the rest in wanting to follow it.
The fact is there are two types of Capitalism there is Fordism.Or there is the exploitative cheap labour get rich quick for a few type which is the global free market economy which is effectively just the same as Communism.
There's no way of running the former type of system without protectionist trade barriers to protect it from the latter type.Let alone putting any government into power which wants to run the domestic economy along the lines of the latter as opposed to the former.
Therefore the obvious question for Farage is which type of economy is he intending to run.In that there is no point in having 'sovereignty' if we're just going to get a sovereign government running a Communist type system for the benefit of those who support such a system instead of an EU federal government doing same.
thismonkeyhere said:
Is it?
What if your sweeping generalisation was that all people of that ilk are brilliant/really nice/good looking?
Technically, I suppose that is still racist - or does it have to be negative?
I really shouldn't type as I think.....
In Unrepentant's case I suspect it was inadvertent racism, I doubt he even realises he harbours racist views...What if your sweeping generalisation was that all people of that ilk are brilliant/really nice/good looking?
Technically, I suppose that is still racist - or does it have to be negative?
I really shouldn't type as I think.....
thismonkeyhere said:
WinstonWolf said:
No, but making a sweeping generalisation based on the colour of someone's skin is racist.
Is it?What if your sweeping generalisation was that all people of that ilk are brilliant/really nice/good looking?
Technically, I suppose that is still racist - or does it have to be negative?
I really shouldn't type as I think.....
By WW's all encompassing definition saying "All black people are black" is racist.
In my opinion (and let's not forget that there is no absolute definition of racism), racism is the deliberate attempt to abuse by picking out someone's race. Of course the grey area comes when someone didn't mean to cause offence, but offence was taken.
dandarez said:
DJRC said:
XJ Flyer said:
unrepentant said:
XJ Flyer said:
That would depend on the idea that going from Callaghan to Blair was a change at all.IE both anti union pro EU and pro global free market economy.Shore would have been the real change and was the best PM we never had.
What is it with you and Peter Shore? You mention him ad nauseum. He never held any of the great offices of state and is little more than a footnote in the politics of the period, a sort of labourite Norman St John Stevas. He was never a serious canduidate for the labour leadership, when he did stand he finished a distant umm... last behind Foot and Healey and failed even to beat John Silkin! Because as we know 'Labour' preferred/s people like Callaghan,Blair,Brown and Minibrain as its leader and PM.The rest is history.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 22 November 21:59
Sounds remarkably similar to Powell, except that the general public didn't like Powell that much either!
Which only goes to show that...you are a berk.
If you were around in the late 60s you'd have seen the poll which suggested nearly THREE QUARTERS of the general public agreed with Powell's opinions.
It was also claimed that the large public support which Powell had was what actually helped the Tories win the 1970 General Election.
You could even say that because Powell then turned his back on the Tories and endorsed Labour, it cost them the 1974 General Election.
Facts, eh?
Apologies I missed off your "could say" aswell.
I am more than happy to insult based on facts whether they be slung or aimed with precision. Shall we start with the obvious fact? Powell was wrong. I believe history has called that one already. Commonwealth immigration into Britain following the end of Empire hasn't just gone remarkably well but seen in the wider narrative of Empires, their collapse and The British Empire then it is an unarguable historical fact that the dismantling of the Empire and subsequent immigration from the former colonies into Britain was the least bloody such occurrence in human history.
I know I know it's terrible when someone has a command of facts, knowledge and enjoys insulting people instead of being nicey nicey middle class and polite. But f
k it, it's just more fun this way!DJRC said:
dandarez said:
DJRC said:
XJ Flyer said:
unrepentant said:
XJ Flyer said:
That would depend on the idea that going from Callaghan to Blair was a change at all.IE both anti union pro EU and pro global free market economy.Shore would have been the real change and was the best PM we never had.
What is it with you and Peter Shore? You mention him ad nauseum. He never held any of the great offices of state and is little more than a footnote in the politics of the period, a sort of labourite Norman St John Stevas. He was never a serious canduidate for the labour leadership, when he did stand he finished a distant umm... last behind Foot and Healey and failed even to beat John Silkin! Because as we know 'Labour' preferred/s people like Callaghan,Blair,Brown and Minibrain as its leader and PM.The rest is history.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 22 November 21:59
Sounds remarkably similar to Powell, except that the general public didn't like Powell that much either!
Which only goes to show that...you are a berk.
If you were around in the late 60s you'd have seen the poll which suggested nearly THREE QUARTERS of the general public agreed with Powell's opinions.
It was also claimed that the large public support which Powell had was what actually helped the Tories win the 1970 General Election.
You could even say that because Powell then turned his back on the Tories and endorsed Labour, it cost them the 1974 General Election.
Facts, eh?
Apologies I missed off your "could say" aswell.
I am more than happy to insult based on facts whether they be slung or aimed with precision. Shall we start with the obvious fact? Powell was wrong. I believe history has called that one already. Commonwealth immigration into Britain following the end of Empire hasn't just gone remarkably well but seen in the wider narrative of Empires, their collapse and The British Empire then it is an unarguable historical fact that the dismantling of the Empire and subsequent immigration from the former colonies into Britain was the least bloody such occurrence in human history.
I know I know it's terrible when someone has a command of facts, knowledge and enjoys insulting people instead of being nicey nicey middle class and polite. But f
k it, it's just more fun this way!Again, how old are you?
DJRC said:
dandarez said:
DJRC said:
XJ Flyer said:
unrepentant said:
XJ Flyer said:
That would depend on the idea that going from Callaghan to Blair was a change at all.IE both anti union pro EU and pro global free market economy.Shore would have been the real change and was the best PM we never had.
What is it with you and Peter Shore? You mention him ad nauseum. He never held any of the great offices of state and is little more than a footnote in the politics of the period, a sort of labourite Norman St John Stevas. He was never a serious canduidate for the labour leadership, when he did stand he finished a distant umm... last behind Foot and Healey and failed even to beat John Silkin! Because as we know 'Labour' preferred/s people like Callaghan,Blair,Brown and Minibrain as its leader and PM.The rest is history.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 22 November 21:59
Sounds remarkably similar to Powell, except that the general public didn't like Powell that much either!
Which only goes to show that...you are a berk.
If you were around in the late 60s you'd have seen the poll which suggested nearly THREE QUARTERS of the general public agreed with Powell's opinions.
It was also claimed that the large public support which Powell had was what actually helped the Tories win the 1970 General Election.
You could even say that because Powell then turned his back on the Tories and endorsed Labour, it cost them the 1974 General Election.
Facts, eh?
Apologies I missed off your "could say" aswell.
I am more than happy to insult based on facts whether they be slung or aimed with precision. Shall we start with the obvious fact? Powell was wrong. I believe history has called that one already. Commonwealth immigration into Britain following the end of Empire hasn't just gone remarkably well but seen in the wider narrative of Empires, their collapse and The British Empire then it is an unarguable historical fact that the dismantling of the Empire and subsequent immigration from the former colonies into Britain was the least bloody such occurrence in human history.
As for the collapse of the 'Empire'.How ironic that the result,of those numerous battles with us for their independence,was mass movement of those same nationals,to the alien society that they'd previously fought against for their own so called 'independent' nations.
XJ Flyer said:
The fact is there are two types of Capitalism there is Fordism.
Simplistic twaddle. As usual. Fords model worked, for a while, because an order of magnitude increase in manufacturing productivity allowed him to produce a better product, much cheaper than everyone else, pay high wages and still make a healthy profit. Constantly pushing this nonsense that Fords success was due to the high wages is daft beyond reason.XJ Flyer said:
The fact is this country is being subject to a socialist/cheap labour alliance attempt at social engineering at least as bad as that which Tito tried to impose in the former Yugoslavia,which historic precedent shows is doomed to failure in a big way.
Comparing the UK's ethnic demographics with Tito's Yugoslavia is mental, pure hyperbole. Your 'socialist/cheap labour' conspiracy is not fact, merely your opinion. Maybe the UK is better out of Europe, maybe we do need to curb immigration (for the sake of people like yourself if nothing else), but race war/blood on the streets is definitely not on the cards.
fblm said:
XJ Flyer said:
The fact is there are two types of Capitalism there is Fordism.
Simplistic twaddle. As usual. Fords model worked, for a while, because an order of magnitude increase in manufacturing productivity allowed him to produce a better product, much cheaper than everyone else, pay high wages and still make a healthy profit. Constantly pushing this nonsense that Fords success was due to the high wages is daft beyond reason.While if they do it is no good that spending power all going into loads of imports and a resulting large trade deficit.Which is more or less what Reaganomics did in post Fordist America with a national debt to prove it.
Paul671 said:
XJ Flyer said:
The fact is this country is being subject to a socialist/cheap labour alliance attempt at social engineering at least as bad as that which Tito tried to impose in the former Yugoslavia,which historic precedent shows is doomed to failure in a big way.
Comparing the UK's ethnic demographics with Tito's Yugoslavia is mental, pure hyperbole. Your 'socialist/cheap labour' conspiracy is not fact, merely your opinion. Maybe the UK is better out of Europe, maybe we do need to curb immigration (for the sake of people like yourself if nothing else), but race war/blood on the streets is definitely not on the cards.
XJ Flyer said:
It was actually adopted as the US economic policy throughout the longest and highest period of economic success in US history.
Economic success, high wages, what a shock! No really who would have though it? You seem to be struggling with the difference between correlation and causation.fblm said:
XJ Flyer said:
It was actually adopted as the US economic policy throughout the longest and highest period of economic success in US history.
Economic success, high wages, what a shock! No really who would have though it? You seem to be struggling with the difference between correlation and causation.In this case the race to the bottom in the form of the global free labour market in which wages are lower in real terms,and the results of the trade deficit in terms of national debt caused by importing stuff from the cheapest labour markets possible.
The fact is if you want to run a modern industrialised economy you've got to pay people enough to provide a decent level of disposable income to buy the products you're making and provide the taxes for public expenditure.
While as we've seen the whole thing goes to hell in a handcart if you try to minimise the wage bill and/or spend whatever money is being generated on cheap imports to take advantage of wage rates in communist sweatshop economies like China etc.
IE enough proof in this case to show that economic growth and running a balanced budget depends on the amount of money people have to spend in the form of wages and if/when they've got it that money is kept at home in the domestic economy,by being spent on domestically manufactured products.IE wages have to be there first.
As opposed to the idea that wages depend on economic growth.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 25th November 04:16
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff