UKIP leader Nigel Farage has hailed gains in council elections across England as a "game changer".
UKIP won over 140 seats and averaged 25% of the vote in the wards where it was standing.
The most eye-catching performance was from UKIP, which is riding high in the opinion polls and fielded 1,700 candidates, three times the number that stood in 2009, when the party won just seven council seats.
The party became the official opposition in Kent, where it won 17 councillors, Lincolnshire, where it won 16 councillors and Norfolk, where it won 15 councillors.
It took seats in councils like Essex and Hampshire, where it previously had no councillors, but failed to pick up any seats in a number of councils including Hertfordshire, Warwickshire, North Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumbria and Derbyshire.
The party, which campaigns for the UK to leave the European Union, polled 11 points higher, on average, than in wards where it stood in 2009.
So begins the rise to power of the pound-shop Nazis.
azazel the cat wrote: Aren't these guys not quite as jackbooted as the BNP? Or am I mistaken in that?
No, they are not quite as far right as the BNP. They are more like your conservative old uncle who never married and thinks the world should be some kind of idealised 1950's suberbia and if you don't like it you can GTFO.
I have to say the UKIP leader's speeches can be quite entertaining sometimes. Other than getting out of the EU I don't really support any of UKIP's other policies particularly. I also don't think that they will see this kind of level of support in the general election either, though it is possible given how much people seem to dislike the big two, and how well the Lib Dems have pissed away their chance to ever be in power again...
Well, another name I like to call them is BNP-lite. But although the BNP try to present themselves as a respectable party and fail hard, UKIP present themselves as a respectable party and are succeeding. In terms of policy, they are de-facto racist, as their latest publicity states that they want to get out of the EU so they can repel and expel immigrants.
Sturmtruppen wrote: Well, another name I like to call them is BNP-lite. But although the BNP try to present themselves as a respectable party and fail hard, UKIP present themselves as a respectable party and are succeeding. In terms of policy, they are de-facto racist, as their latest publicity states that they want to get out of the EU so they can repel and expel immigrants.
Well, kicking out/heavily restricting immigrants isn't racist per se, and is nothing like the BNP's seeming aim to kick out anyone who doesn't burn when they go out in the sun for more than 20 minutes...
I hope that this is simply a protest vote and that the actual election result will be very different (which it probably will be). It does give an indication as to just how small minded a significant proportion of the UK public is though.
If UKIP ever come to power I will seriously consider emigrating (and I am being completely serious).
How do the Tories have twice the number of councillors than Labour yet have a smaller share of the total vote?
Palindrome wrote: How do the Tories have twice the number of councillors than Labour yet have a smaller share of the total vote?
Some districts are larger than others, yet have fewer councillors per person. This can skew the votes:councillors figures a bit when combined with some districts having a very heavy voting bias for one party or another, while others have a much closer vote.
azazel the cat wrote: Aren't these guys not quite as jackbooted as the BNP? Or am I mistaken in that?
No, they are not quite as far right as the BNP. They are more like your conservative old uncle who never married and thinks the world should be some kind of idealised 1950's suberbia and if you don't like it you can GTFO.
How do the Tories have twice the number of councillors than Labour yet have a smaller share of the total vote?
It's mostly to do with the first past the post electoral system and the fact most of the elections this year were county council elections (as opposed to unitary or metropolitan elections) which the Conservatives tend to do better in. If you consider that some council seats will need less votes to secure election (due to slightly varying sizes of the electorate within) then it becomes easier for a party to potentially win seats with less votes.
Example, in a 'safe' Conservative seat where most of the total electorate would vote Conservative, there is a greater chance that people will choose not to bother voting as they perceive other people voting will achieve the same result i.e. a returned Conservative councillor. This then scews the statistics to give the party a lower total vote share but a higher seat count. Whereas Labour supporters or protest voters are more likely to go out and vote in protest at the current government in order to remove Conservative/Liberal Councillors, which gives a much higher share of the vote even if not as many seats are won. Moreover it is possible that many people who had previously voted Conservative chose not to vote because they no longer care, but in those constituencies/wards there were not enough people willing to vote against the Conservatives to make a difference to the overall result, but instead just helped slowly nudge up the total vote for Labour without it gaining the seat itself
azazel the cat wrote: Aren't these guys not quite as jackbooted as the BNP? Or am I mistaken in that?
No, they are not quite as far right as the BNP. They are more like your conservative old uncle who never married and thinks the world should be some kind of idealised 1950's suberbia and if you don't like it you can GTFO.
Sounds like U.S. Republicans! Enjoy!
Given what little I know about UK politics, nothing over there resembles whats over here. A European "Conservative" would be hard left over here.
It seem's that UKIP have garnered a good deal of their votes from 'Oop North'.... That dosnt surprise me in the least, it's pretty grim up there and maybe the local populace are rising up against Labour and the Tories?
If so, I hope it's a protest vote and nothing more. But, it's a good job I have a house in Manila. I can scarper there with the wife once UKIP win the 2020 election!
I plan to vote UKIP, actually - perhaps that makes me racist, but that's not how I see it.
Limiting immigration makes sense, as far as I'm concerned, and their other policies are equally as good as anything else that any of the other parties are lying about wanting to do.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote: I plan to vote UKIP, actually - perhaps that makes me racist, but that's not how I see it.
Limiting immigration makes sense, as far as I'm concerned, and their other policies are equally as good as anything else that any of the other parties are lying about wanting to do.
You do understand that both the US and the UK economies are built on the notion of increasing populations, that the current white populations are decreasing and that both nations actually benefit from immigrants coming to and working in the country?
If you have an idea or proposal, the fact that supposed racists are for it doesn't make it a bad idea. I don't know much about UK immigration so I can't say much about the specifics, but opposing immigration isn't a racist move. Opposing the immigration of a specific ethnicity is racist.
The UK isn't exactly full of land for immigrants to live in, so limiting immigration would make sense if you are in danger of population overflow.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote: I plan to vote UKIP, actually - perhaps that makes me racist, but that's not how I see it.
Limiting immigration makes sense, as far as I'm concerned, and their other policies are equally as good as anything else that any of the other parties are lying about wanting to do.
You do understand that both the US and the UK economies are built on the notion of increasing populations, that the current white populations are decreasing and that both nations actually benefit from immigrants coming to and working in the country?
In the past, definitely. Now, not so sure its true anymore.
We used to rely on immigrants for cheap unskilled labor for the vast majority of our industry. But as times have changed the labor demand now wants skilled labor, which isn't cheap. We also don't need as much labor as before either. What used to take 10 people now only takes 3. And that number is only going to get smaller.
Voting for Labour, Tories (expecially) or Lib Dems is a very very very stupid idea. They actively work against all residents of the UK barring their select favorites. People are sick of parties who care only about foreign interests or the rich.
Why not vote for something else?
You do understand that both the US and the UK economies are built on the notion of increasing populations, that the current white populations are decreasing and that both nations actually benefit from immigrants coming to and working in the country?
Theres always a cost, and in this case its simply about not trying to marginalize the natives. The US has a lot more land to build houses, but where is the UK going to home all this continual influx of immigrants?
You do understand that both the US and the UK economies are built on the notion of increasing populations, that the current white populations are decreasing and that both nations actually benefit from immigrants coming to and working in the country?
Theres always a cost, and in this case its simply about not trying to marginalize the natives. The US has a lot more land to build houses, but where is the UK going to home all this continual influx of immigrants?
Yup, really looking forward to the tides of Romanians and Bulgarians next year... [/sarcasm]
The Polish never assimilated. We have a quite literal unspoken apartheid going on in certain areas of this country that is driving a wedge between communities. Just wait and see what happens when we get a whole new wave of immigrants that refuse to learn our language (something which should be compulsary. It is not racist to suggest that. Other countries do have that in their entry criteria) and will divide Britain even further.
But you know, the Tories will just tell them it rains a lot in Britain; that'll keep 'em out.
I'd vote for virtually anything if it meant that I didn't have to vote for the middle class version of the BNP.
You'd vote for the group who destroyed the economy single-handly? (labour), the group who hates the poor and is incredibly discriminatory towards scots? (tories) and the group which acts as the tories lapdop with no thoughts of their own? (lib dems)
You'd vote for the group who destroyed the economy single-handly? (labour), the group who hates the poor and is incredibly discriminatory towards scots? (tories) and the group which acts as the tories lapdop with no thoughts of their own? (lib dems)
I will never vote Tory unless they shift significantly to the left. I was a Lib Dem voter but that didn't turn out very well so next time I will be voting Labour on the grounds that they are the best of a piss poor bunch. Labour didn't destroy the economy, the Tories don't hate the poor (they have far to much fondness for capitalism though) and the Scots hate them anyway. The Lib dems made a massive error in forming the ConDem coalition, which is something that they will have to live with for a very long time, and as theyare a junior partner with a party opposed to lots of their policies they have limited scope to form the party line and often have to back things that they really don't like. They are not Tory lapdogs.
I will be suprised if there is an influx of Romanians and Bulgarians, I expect that there will be a few but not many. The economic situation is completely different than it was when the Poles started to come over and, going by a couple of news reports and a radio documentary, there seems to be a lack of enthusiasm to come to this country anyway.
You'd vote for the group who destroyed the economy single-handly? (labour), the group who hates the poor and is incredibly discriminatory towards scots? (tories) and the group which acts as the tories lapdop with no thoughts of their own? (lib dems)
I will never vote Tory unless they shift significantly to the left. I was a Lib Dem voter but that didn't turn out very well so next time I will be voting Labour on the grounds that they are the best of a piss poor bunch. Labour didn't destroy the economy, the Tories don't hate the poor (they have far to much fondness for capitalism though) and the Scots hate them anyway. The Lib dems made a massive error in forming the ConDem coalition, which is something that they will have to live with for a very long time, and as theyare a junior partner with a party opposed to lots of their policies they have limited scope to form the party line and often have to back things that they really don't like. They are not Tory lapdogs.
Then ask why we're in a triple dip recession after agonizing years with labour and the tories in power. Voting either of these three just perpetuates the problem.
Grey Templar wrote: I don't know much about UK immigration so I can't say much about the specifics, but opposing immigration isn't a racist move. Opposing the immigration of a specific ethnicity is racist.
According to the last census, 12.6% of people living in England and Wales weren't born here. As for specific ethnicities, they explicitly target Bulgarians and Romanians on the basis that those are the specific people the European Union opens our borders to.
Grey Templar wrote: The UK isn't exactly full of land for immigrants to live in, so limiting immigration would make sense if you are in danger of population overflow.
That has to be by far the stupidest way to decide upon a ruling government. Afterall you could empty out a prison and fill up the House of Commons with criminals, they are also 'new blood' (in most cases anyway), do you want them running the country? In fairness they probably couldn't do any worse than UKIP.
That has to be by far the stupidest way to decide upon a ruling government.
Funny how it turns out to be the way the public voted then, eh? Maybe the 3 main parties should take note of their own ineptitude and then they won't end up in this avoidable position again.
The best thing to do with current reality of politics is to protest vote.
It'll probably be labour (with people unsurprisingly forgetting what they did to the economy) who wins overall, but parties like the UKIP will get a lot more seats, which is very telling of the public's confidence and an outright failure of the main parties to adapt.
UKIP don't have policies, they have a bunch of complaints like you would hear from a pub bore. Getting into power would reveal their essential uselessness.
That has to be by far the stupidest way to decide upon a ruling government.
Funny how it turns out to be the way the public voted then, eh? Maybe the 3 main parties should take note of their own ineptitude and then they won't end up in this avoidable position again.
The best thing to do with current reality of politics is to protest vote.
1. Are you implying the causal factor in the UKIP's election is "new blood", as opposed to their being an extremely xenophobic conservative party, both of which are elements that traditionally thrive during times of economic hardship? Because that would be a very silly implication.
2. Protest voting is really not the best thing to do, unless there is an actual party set up designed to only ask for protest votes. Otherwise, your arbitrary protest vote is likely going to go to one of the members of the lunatic fringe, and that's a bad scene.
Ahtman wrote:What is a "pound store nazi"? I know what a nazi generally is, but the pound store throws me a touch.
I assume the equivalent of a Dollar Store Nazi; ie. a cheap, watered down or knockoff version of the real thing.
For a bit of context, Labour made over twice the gains of UKIP.
Also, come a general election, people will be far less willing to vote for a racist party with uncosted silly policies such as increasing the defence budget by 40%, doubling the prison population or offering to pay for every child to be educated privately, all while massively lowering the higher tax brackets and raising the lower one.
I don't like UKIP myself, but to call them closet racists or fruitcakes is the last refuge of the desperate. They are a legitimate (although cranky) political party in the UK. You defeat them by engaging and taking their ideas apart, not accusing them of having mental health issues, which seems to be the default mode of political criticism these days.
A lot of people in the UK have concerns with where the EU is heading these days and about immigration. I may not agree with them, but in a democracy, you respect their views.
Sturmtruppen wrote: Well, another name I like to call them is BNP-lite. But although the BNP try to present themselves as a respectable party and fail hard, UKIP present themselves as a respectable party and are succeeding. In terms of policy, they are de-facto racist, as their latest publicity states that they want to get out of the EU so they can repel and expel immigrants.
IIRC, UKIP dont want to stop all immigrants, just the ones that dont want to work and are happy living on benefits or providing no support for society, those that want to work in areas where jobs are needed such as doctors or I imagine builders, they are welcome. It is not racist to want to stop more people coming into Britain, its common sense because we all know how the media are but when people read every day about no jobs, more migrants etc, of course they are going to want to stop it, doesnt make them a racist.
However tbh a politician is a politician so I dont really care about UKIP at the time being because most likely they will do what every other politician does, lie.
And of course to have selective immigration policies will prove a challenge so it would be interesting to see how that plays out, perhaps adopt something similar to Australia?
My opinion is that immigration is a problem, I guess it is because of my area and life experiences but I guess that makes me a racist.
Albatross wrote: 'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.'
Some of us have been challenging UKIP since the massive influx they got from the BNP and the EDL a couple of years ago. There is a long history of anti-racism and anti-fascism in this country as can be seen in such events like the Battle for Cable Street against Mosely's blackshirts, and the vast majority of the public don't buy the scapegoating of the far right and will never support such things, thankfully.
Albatross wrote: 'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.'
Some of us have been challenging UKIP since the massive influx they got from the BNP and the EDL a couple of years ago. There is a long history of anti-racism and anti-fascism in this country as can be seen in such events like the Battle for Cable Street against Mosely's blackshirts, and the vast majority of the public don't buy the scapegoating of the far right and will never support such things, thankfully.
UKIP and the 1930s blackshirts are worlds apart. It was reported that even the labour party, and of course, the tories, have had to kick out people for their BNP style views. That doesn't mean that UKIP are planning for the fourth reich.
They've struck a chime with the British public, so instead of attacking them, people should be asking where did their votes come from and why?
IIRC, UKIP dont want to stop all immigrants, just the ones that dont want to work and are happy living on benefits or providing no support for society, those that want to work in areas where jobs are needed such as doctors or I imagine builders, they are welcome. It is not racist to want to stop more people coming into Britain, its common sense because we all know how the media are but when people read every day about no jobs, more migrants etc, of course they are going to want to stop it, doesnt make them a racist.
However tbh a politician is a politician so I dont really care about UKIP at the time being because most likely they will do what every other politician does, lie.
And of course to have selective immigration policies will prove a challenge so it would be interesting to see how that plays out, perhaps adopt something similar to Australia?
My opinion is that immigration is a problem, I guess it is because of my area and life experiences but I guess that makes me a racist.
We already have a points system for non EU migrants, and regarding EU migrants, they are massively less likely to claim benefits than British citizens. The Polish or West Indians or whoever didn't cause the mess we are in, the financial sector and political lobbying did.
The only thing that worries me is the far right side of things, I have no idea what UKIP's real agenda would be if they got into power, just like any other party really.
Albatross wrote: 'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.'
Some of us have been challenging UKIP since the massive influx they got from the BNP and the EDL a couple of years ago. There is a long history of anti-racism and anti-fascism in this country as can be seen in such events like the Battle for Cable Street against Mosely's blackshirts, and the vast majority of the public don't buy the scapegoating of the far right and will never support such things, thankfully.
UKIP and the 1930s blackshirts are worlds apart. It was reported that even the labour party, and of course, the tories, have had to kick out people for their BNP style views. That doesn't mean that UKIP are planning for the fourth reich.
They've struck a chime with the British public, so instead of attacking them, people should be asking where did their votes come from and why?
A lot of their votes are coming from those disaffected with the tories lurch to the centre, the BNP, and first time voters. There are some who have moved from Labour but looking at the results of the local elections Labour have been taking far more of the vote than they did at the last general (a considerable number of which will be those returning after a Lib Dem vote). The problem with the "British public" is they are told what to think far too much by the likes of the Mail and the Sun, a lot actually think Europe has a ruling on the correct angle of a banana's bend.
I certainly don't think UKIP are planning a Forth Reich, I do however see far too much of the same faces supporting UKIP as support the EDL or used to support the BNP. It's this umbrella of acceptable racism that worries me.
Yeah, people want something different and I have to admit I used to like the Daily Mail when I was young but as my knowledge grew things have naturally changed, I mean I still like the odd giggle and rage read but my eyes are more open to the kinds of messages it sends out and like you said it is the likes of the Mail and the Sun which have drove peoples opinions. The media create a certain view of the world.
Would you mind saying who supports the UKIP and BNP? I would be interested to find out who they are as this affiliation should be stomped out.
IIRC, UKIP dont want to stop all immigrants, just the ones that dont want to work and are happy living on benefits or providing no support for society, those that want to work in areas where jobs are needed such as doctors or I imagine builders, they are welcome. It is not racist to want to stop more people coming into Britain, its common sense because we all know how the media are but when people read every day about no jobs, more migrants etc, of course they are going to want to stop it, doesnt make them a racist.
However tbh a politician is a politician so I dont really care about UKIP at the time being because most likely they will do what every other politician does, lie.
And of course to have selective immigration policies will prove a challenge so it would be interesting to see how that plays out, perhaps adopt something similar to Australia?
My opinion is that immigration is a problem, I guess it is because of my area and life experiences but I guess that makes me a racist.
We already have a points system for non EU migrants, and regarding EU migrants, they are massively less likely to claim benefits than British citizens. The Polish or West Indians or whoever didn't cause the mess we are in, the financial sector and political lobbying did.
There are also strict rules on how soon after entering the country even EU nationals can claim any benefits. You must be working in the UK for 3 months before having any right to anything. Unless you think that people are coming to the UK with the idea of working hard for three months then claiming benefits.
The thing is that the idea of people coming from all over the EU to the UK to claim our benefits with no want to work is in the heads of UKIP and some papers. THIS is why they are called racist. People have tried to point out the nonsense of what they are saying and this has failed. So we, in the great British way, ridicule them. See the reason naziisum and the black shirts did not take hold in the UK. We have a great tradition of ridiculing extreme groups. The same goes for far left communist groups.
UKIP are a joke who are playing to a very small group. They will never get in to power because most people disagee with them.
UKIP are a joke who are playing to a very small group. They will never get in to power because most people disagee with them.
Also Farage is a nob.
They got a lot more votes than they would if they were a true fringe party. The problem is that most people are almost completle ignorant of politics. On purely political grounds the UKIP manifesto is a complete joke which would result in the further ruin of the economy, lower taxes + increased spending =profit???, yet (presumably) millions of people voted for them.
They won't get into power on their own but they may get into a coalition government and that is what I find so worrying.
Was just reading through the 2012 Manifesto and I have to say, they certainly seem to have the best ideals, more power to communities? Improved public transport? Halting cuts to the NHS and other public services? Criticising those in power and their large wallets? Who wouldnt want this?
Of course, judgement shall be held until they put words to action.
Would you mind saying who supports the UKIP and BNP? I would be interested to find out who they are as this affiliation should be stomped out.
UKIP claim that former membership of other far right groups such as the BNP or NF mean people are not allowed to become members, but there have been some high profile exceptions.
John Brayshaw was exposed as being Chairman of UKIP's Vale of York branch and the BNP's National Treasurer at the same time. Trevor Agnew was a UKIP parliamentary candidate and a well known BNP activist, he was expelled from UKIP in '99 and then allowed to rejoin, after which he pledged his support to the BNP in the '03 elections. Andrew Moffat was a UKIP parliamentary candidate, and was a member of the National Front. Martyn Heale is Chairman of UKIP's Thanet South branch, and was also a member of the National Front and stood as an NF candidate in Hammersmith in the late 70s. Plus this week, Alan Ryall was disowned by the party for previous membership of the BNP, but remained on ballot papers as it was too late to remove him.
Also, you may find this report quite interesting about far right support in the UK.
And Farage is famously allegedly quoted as saying " we will never win the n-word vote, the n-s will never vote for us" by Alan Sked, UKIP's original leader.
Would you mind saying who supports the UKIP and BNP? I would be interested to find out who they are as this affiliation should be stomped out.
UKIP claim that former membership of other far right groups such as the BNP or NF mean people are not allowed to become members, but there have been some high profile exceptions.
John Brayshaw was exposed as being Chairman of UKIP's Vale of York branch and the BNP's National Treasurer at the same time.
Trevor Agnew was a UKIP parliamentary candidate and a well known BNP activist, he was expelled from UKIP in '99 and then allowed to rejoin, after which he pledged his support to the BNP in the '03 elections.
Andrew Moffat was a UKIP parliamentary candidate, and was a member of the National Front.
Martyn Heale is Chairman of UKIP's Thanet South branch, and was also a member of the National Front and stood as an NF candidate in Hammersmith in the late 70s.
Plus this week, Alan Ryall was disowned by the party for previous membership of the BNP, but remained on ballot papers as it was too late to remove him.
Also, you may find this report quite interesting about far right support in the UK.
How will all these things be paid for, especially when UKIP want to lower taxes? The answer of course is that they can't be. UKIP may pretend that leaving the EU will free up billions but in the scheme of things the sums saved are really not that great (less than 1% of government expenditure) and there will also be severe financial implications if we do leave the EU.
As I said, this is why I will hold judgement until they start to try and implement these amazing ideas, like with every other party which say they will do one thing but then have to do something completely different or go back on their word.
UKIP has no real policies beyond 'kick out the foreigners and leave the EU', The rest of it is all just speculative twaddle about what they would do if they had an unlimited budget. The Liberal Democrats used to do the same thing, until they got into power and realised that they actually had to deliver on the airy promises made in opposition. Which of course proved to be impossible.
The fact that their core membership is heavily comprised of people with extremely far right leanings also does not help their cause.
The whole "if you're going to move there, learn the language!" thing makes me laugh, because I work with lots of british people in Germany, many of whom have been there for years, and many of whom don't speak a word of german even after all those years.
There are of course many who speak fluent german and integrate well, but every population of immigrants will have problems with this sort of thing. The British are no exception. I also wonder what will happen to all my british co-workers should the UK leave the EU. It will be complicated for them, and for all the other ex Pats.
As for UKIP, I reckon it's mostly a protest vote, something like Sinn Féin's increased popularity in Ireland, though more right wing because the UK, or at least especially England, is quite a right wing place by EU standards.
Would you mind saying who supports the UKIP and BNP? I would be interested to find out who they are as this affiliation should be stomped out.
UKIP claim that former membership of other far right groups such as the BNP or NF mean people are not allowed to become members, but there have been some high profile exceptions.
John Brayshaw was exposed as being Chairman of UKIP's Vale of York branch and the BNP's National Treasurer at the same time.
Trevor Agnew was a UKIP parliamentary candidate and a well known BNP activist, he was expelled from UKIP in '99 and then allowed to rejoin, after which he pledged his support to the BNP in the '03 elections.
Andrew Moffat was a UKIP parliamentary candidate, and was a member of the National Front.
Martyn Heale is Chairman of UKIP's Thanet South branch, and was also a member of the National Front and stood as an NF candidate in Hammersmith in the late 70s.
Plus this week, Alan Ryall was disowned by the party for previous membership of the BNP, but remained on ballot papers as it was too late to remove him.
Albatross wrote: What's your point? That a political party can include some pretty unsavoury members? And?
Generally speaking, if a party is made up of people of a certain type of belief or leaning (unsavoury or otherwise), that's usually a firm indicator of the sorts of beliefs that party actually has, regardless of what may be printed on the manifesto. And those beliefs will usually dictate what sort of policy would be followed if that party was in power.
Albatross wrote: What's your point? That a political party can include some pretty unsavoury members? And?
Generally speaking, if a party is made up of people of a certain type of belief or leaning (unsavoury or otherwise), that's usually a firm indicator of the sorts of beliefs that party actually has, regardless of what may be printed on the manifesto. And those beliefs will usually dictate what sort of policy would be followed if that party was in power.
So is the argument that a handful of people are an indicator of the beliefs of the whole? Because I can name several members and former members of the Labour party who should probably stand trial for war crimes, use of torture etc.
Albatross wrote: What's your point? That a political party can include some pretty unsavoury members? And?
Generally speaking, if a party is made up of people of a certain type of belief or leaning (unsavoury or otherwise), that's usually a firm indicator of the sorts of beliefs that party actually has, regardless of what may be printed on the manifesto. And those beliefs will usually dictate what sort of policy would be followed if that party was in power.
So is the argument that a handful of people are an indicator of the beliefs of the whole? Because I can name several members and former members of the Labour party who should probably stand trial for war crimes, use of torture etc.
Note the wording, 'made up'. If it's one member in a hundred, no, probably not. If its three in every five? Different ball game. Even if those last two have differing beliefs, not only are they outnumbered, but they odds are that they will stand along similar ideological grounds, or they wouldn't be part of the party in the first place.
Although this is pretty much common sense, so I'm not entirely sure why you're debating the concept.
Albatross wrote: What's your point? That a political party can include some pretty unsavoury members? And?
Generally speaking, if a party is made up of people of a certain type of belief or leaning (unsavoury or otherwise), that's usually a firm indicator of the sorts of beliefs that party actually has, regardless of what may be printed on the manifesto. And those beliefs will usually dictate what sort of policy would be followed if that party was in power.
So is the argument that a handful of people are an indicator of the beliefs of the whole? Because I can name several members and former members of the Labour party who should probably stand trial for war crimes, use of torture etc.
Note the wording, 'made up'. If it's one member in a hundred, no, probably not. If its three in every five? Different ball game. Even if those last two have differing beliefs, not only are they outnumbered, but they odds are that they will stand along similar ideological grounds, or they wouldn't be part of the party in the first place.
Although this is pretty much common sense, so I'm not entirely sure why you're debating the concept.
I'm not sure why you're arguing with me at all, unless you actually believe that UKIP is made up of BNP supporters. Which would be very silly.
I think it depends on the position of these few 'bad apples,' normal folk who support BNP and want UKIP in power would not bother me. However because it is those in power who define policy and such, their beliefs and agenda will anchor itself in policy.
I found this very interesting reading. I believe that there may be an intentional movement of BNP/NF membership into UKIP and that UKIP may soon become a trojan horse/5th column for the fascists as it's infection grows from within.
If the founder of UKIP is now saying the party is no longer what it was and that there are fascist elements on the rise within it, then it may be cause for concern.
For my part, watching UKIP send a ripple across the political establishment over the last year has been amusing. I think that they are essentially being used by the British public to express frustration with the three main political parties.
While the views of their individual members may vary wildly (as it will in many political parties), I think it's unsavoury members are very much in the minority, though if I intended to vote for them, I would closely investigate the individual I was voting for.
As for the whole Europe question, we need a very open debate where the whole EU is taken apart piece by piece so the British public can see what it does and how it operates warts and all. Then and only then, should we have a referendum. I believe in the EU in principle, but the current system is broken and rotten and all Europeans (not just Brits) need to see it for what it is.
I'll leave you with this...
Charles Moore wrote:Some of you may not have heard of Lady Ashton. She is the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. I am not aware of anything she has ever done that has benefited this country. When she leaves her post in 2014, she will have served five years at an annual salary (currently) of £287,543 (roughly twice what our Prime Minister earns). For this fairly short stint, she will then have a pension of £61,000 pa, and a “transitional allowance”, payable over three years, of £400,000.
Charles Moore wrote:Some of you may not have heard of Lady Ashton. She is the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. I am not aware of anything she has ever done that has benefited this country. When she leaves her post in 2014, she will have served five years at an annual salary (currently) of £287,543 (roughly twice what our Prime Minister earns). For this fairly short stint, she will then have a pension of £61,000 pa, and a “transitional allowance”, payable over three years, of £400,000.
UKIP are essentially a massive pressure group for the far-right, the whole of the UK was built on expansion, and it worked (to a certain extent), now the EU is trying to expand, but in the eyes of the British it is unacceptable (only a little hypocritical). In addition to this there was also the "Nazi salut" by a UKIP candidate.
Flashman wrote: we need a very open debate where the whole EU is taken apart piece by piece so the British public can see what it does and how it operates warts and all. Then and only then, should we have a referendum. I believe in the EU in principle, but the current system is broken and rotten and all Europeans (not just Brits) need to see it for what it is.
I agree with this entirely. There is a lot of hand waving on both sides over what the EU does and doesn't do for us, what is can and cannot do, how it does and doesn't work. I think it will be good for Europe as a whole to have far more transparent political and administrative forces.
Flashman wrote: For my part, watching UKIP send a ripple across the political establishment over the last year has been amusing. I think that they are essentially being used by the British public to express frustration with the three main political parties.
Yes I think so too. Certainly, Nigel Farage (the UKIP leader) came across quite well when he has been on Newsnight or similar shows, simply because he sounded like a rational (albeit argumentative) human being, rather than the usual political archetype of smarmy salesman who is unable to give a firm answer about anything.
That being said, I think their ascendancy will halt the moment that the general election looms, and it becomes more widely publicised that UKIP plan to scrap the NHS if they ever get into power.
Can you honestly not see the difference between a human rights lawyer supporting an unsavoury group and standing as a candidate for the National Front?
Albatross wrote: I'm not sure why you're arguing with me at all, unless you actually believe that UKIP is made up of BNP supporters. Which would be very silly.
Numerous studies have shown that both UKIP and the BNP draw from the same pool of support.
SilverMK2 wrote:we need a very open debate where the whole EU is taken apart piece by piece so the British public can see what it does and how it operates warts and all. Then and only then, should we have a referendum. I believe in the EU in principle, but the current system is broken and rotten and all Europeans (not just Brits) need to see it for what it is.
Well one good thing that the EU provides is that it keeps the cost of living artificially low in Britain, with such things as the Common Agricultural Policy making food far more affordable than it would otherwise be.
Am I the only person who wants Britain to stay in the EU?
I don't and probably never will have a vote (Norwegian Citizenship), but one of the distinguishing features of Britain is the sheer cultural variety and integration. Unlike many countries, most communities actually function together really well.
And I feel that UKIP doesn't understand the purpose of the EU; it's really a huge support and governing network across Europe, not just a money sink.
Sure, but what it's supposed to do (massive support network/governing body) and what it does (money sink) are two very different things. I'd theorize that a lot of the opposition to EU comes from individuals who aren't particularly fans of England lowering her neck to the concept of a unified Europe and want to maintain independence. As it stands now from the current economic issues it's pretty clear the EU is either going to eventually dissolve or form into an actual state
BlapBlapBlap wrote: Am I the only person who wants Britain to stay in the EU?
It's very grey for me. If we are to stay, I want the EU to put its house in order.
BlapBlapBlap wrote: One of the distinguishing features of Britain is the sheer cultural variety and integration. Unlike many countries, most communities actually function together really well.
Indeed, it's a reason to be proud of the UK.
BlapBlapBlap wrote: And I feel that UKIP doesn't understand the purpose of the EU; it's really a huge support and governing network across Europe, not just a money sink.
Then the pro Europe crowd need to start making these points in a clear manner and sort out the latter issue. If the UK get's a referendum in the next 5 years, then with the current prevailing atmosphere, we (as a country) will vote out.
Can you honestly not see the difference between a human rights lawyer supporting an unsavoury group and standing as a candidate for the National Front?
That unsavoury group went on to become Liberty, incidentally - she didn't just support them, she worked for them. Please look into their attitudes towards paedophila, there is some pretty shocking stuff in there. This gem, for example: "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage...'
I guess it depends which you think is worse, paedophila or racism. And she was a central part of the last Labour government, not just some local whack-job who wasn't vetted properly before being allowed to stand.
Can you honestly not see the difference between a human rights lawyer supporting an unsavoury group and standing as a candidate for the National Front?
That unsavoury group went on to become Liberty, incidentally - she didn't just support them, she worked for them. Please look into their attitudes towards paedophila, there is some pretty shocking stuff in there. This gem, for example: "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage...'
I guess it depends which you think is worse, paedophila or racism. And she was a central part of the last Labour government, not just some local whack-job who wasn't vetted properly before being allowed to stand.
While I honestly don't have the full context here, isn't there a difference between a party hiring someone with questionable views, and a party hiring someone with questionable views in order to gain the votes they bring? That is, did the Labour party utilize that person to go after the "pedo vote"? Because I do get the impression that the platform of the UKIP seems to be capitalizing on loose BNP ties in order to go after a vertain voting block.
Again, not much context and reference here, just editorial speculation.
Can you honestly not see the difference between a human rights lawyer supporting an unsavoury group and standing as a candidate for the National Front?
That unsavoury group went on to become Liberty, incidentally - she didn't just support them, she worked for them. Please look into their attitudes towards paedophila, there is some pretty shocking stuff in there. This gem, for example: "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage...'
The unsavoury group I was referring to were the paedophile groups such as the Paedophile Information Exchange rather than Liberty. The point isn't who she was supporting but the message itself, a message which is deeply emotive and quite against common sense. But the claim itself: "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage...' has some evidence and support within the psychology community. I'm not saying the claim is true or false as I don't know, but I'm just pointing out the fact the claim is open to debate.
http://www.ipce.info/host/sandfort_87/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy
I guess it depends which you think is worse, paedophila or racism.
Well both paedophilia and racism have links with lower IQ, but paedophilia is an actual illness rather than racism which isn't, you can tell a paedophile from an MRI as they have a different white matter makeup. Of course you do have to distinguish between paedophilia and child abuse as they are very different things, one is a mental illness and the other is an abhorrent crime, but not all child abusers are paedophiles and not all paedophiles are child abusers.
And she was a central part of the last Labour government, not just some local whack-job who wasn't vetted properly before being allowed to stand.
You will notice the list I posted included a couple of Chairmen, the links between the BNP and UKIP are far deeper than some idiot who can't even sieg heil properly posting photos on facebook.
We are of course getting away from the topic at hand, which is whether UKIP are some trojan horse (thank you for the analogy MGS ) for racists, and it would appear they are. Do any of the other main parties describe themselves as non-racist? They don't need to, and while other parties have had some members of the far right they haven't crowded like moths around a flame as they have to UKIP. Tommy Robinson (or whatever his real name is) told all EDL candidates to stand down in areas where UKIP stood a chance of getting in, for fear of splitting the vote, so he must see something similar in their platforms.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here are some of UKIP's policies from this article.
Spoiler:
Ukip policies
Lower taxes "Abolish the tax on work – employers' National Insurance [NI]." This would lose around £50bn a year in revenue, at a stroke, reversing all progress in cutting the deficit since 2010.
"Take 4.5 million of low incomes out of tax with a simple, flat rate income tax … Merge 20 per cent basic income tax with 11 per cent NI to create a 31 per cent flat tax on all earned incomes over £11,500." This would create another vast hole in public finances, and mean tax cuts for all higher-rate taxpayers.
"Ukip have a long-standing policy to abolish inheritance tax." This would cost about £3bn a year.
"Global warming is not proven – wind power is futile. Scrap all green taxes, wind-turbine subsidies, adopt nuclear power to free us from dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil and gas."
"Cut taxes on small businesses." Unspecified.
Lower public spending "Public spending is increasing and the coalition's cuts do not scratch the surface of Labour's deficit. We must cut down government if we are to return to a sound economy."
Quangos: "Bring them under Parliament's control and cut the cost substantially". No definition of "substantial".
"Make real and rigorous cuts in foreign aid." The aid budget is about £10bn a year.
"By leaving the EU we save over £45m a day plus £60bn a year due to EU trade barriers, business regulation, waste, fraud." £60bn a year is equivalent to the annual spending of the entire Education Department.
Higher public spending "Spend an extra 40 per cent on defence annually." A cost of £19bn pa.
"Double prison places to enforce zero tolerance on crime." Cost about £4bn pa.
"Roll all state pensions and benefits into a simple, substantial citizen's pension." Uncosted.
Restore student grants, but abandon target of 50 per cent of young people going to university. Uncosted.
A better yesterday "Only by leaving the EU can we regain control of our borders."
"Life must mean life."
"Our traditional values have been undermined. Children are taught to be ashamed of our past. Multiculturalism has split our society. Political correctness is stifling free speech."
"Support grammar schools."
"End the ban on smoking in allocated rooms in public houses, clubs and hotels."
"Hold county-wide referenda on the hunting ban."
purplefood wrote: It's probably a better idea to stay in the EU and try and fix it rather than just bail...
I'm not entirely sure it can be fixed, not with its current members.
As it stands its a sinking ship, we just aren't sure how much time it has and the only way to slow it realistically is to throw the weak economies overboard. But I doubt that will happen, so its only a matter of time.
Mr Hyena wrote: How does any country start to fix a mafia made up of many other countries, some of which are quite unsavory.
I don't even know where to start...
How is the EU a mafia? I don't see many MEPs looking around saying "nice country you have here, shame if anything happened to it." What I do see is a council which, for example, this week has stopped our crops from failing by outlawing pesticides that our government were too toothless to, probably due to financial interests and lobbying.
Mr Hyena wrote: How does any country start to fix a mafia made up of many other countries, some of which are quite unsavory.
I don't even know where to start...
How is the EU a mafia? I don't see many MEPs looking around saying "nice country you have here, shame if anything happened to it." What I do see is a council which, for example, this week has stopped our crops from failing by outlawing pesticides that our government were too toothless to, probably due to financial interests and lobbying.
They interfere in sovereignty of nations by imposing rules they shouldn't be imposing. Like that very example you cited. Which will reduce the productivity of farm produce while causing an increase in argicultural pests which has serious financial implications for the farming sector (and the public as a result) while also causing a surge in infectious disease of agriculture.
Mr Hyena wrote: How does any country start to fix a mafia made up of many other countries, some of which are quite unsavory.
I don't even know where to start...
How is the EU a mafia? I don't see many MEPs looking around saying "nice country you have here, shame if anything happened to it." What I do see is a council which, for example, this week has stopped our crops from failing by outlawing pesticides that our government were too toothless to, probably due to financial interests and lobbying.
They interfere in sovereignty of nations by imposing rules they shouldn't be imposing. Like that very example you cited. Which will reduce the productivity of farm produce while causing an increase in argicultural pests which has serious financial implications for the farming sector (and the public as a result) while also causing a surge in infectious disease of agriculture.
The farming sector will be fine, unless of course we leave the EU, then they are properly fethed due to loss of subsidies. I will trust the academics that have conducted experiments on the effects of nicotine on bees ahead of the company that produces the pesticides, but then I'm somewhat skeptical when it comes to financial conflicts of interest in science.
Is that seriously why you think the EU is a "mafia"? Because they take experimental data ahead of political lobbying?
And these are exactly the sorts of things they should be imposing rules on, as it is quite apparent that our government do not have the interests of the people in mind when they make policy on such matters.
Mr Hyena wrote: How does any country start to fix a mafia made up of many other countries, some of which are quite unsavory.
I don't even know where to start...
How is the EU a mafia? I don't see many MEPs looking around saying "nice country you have here, shame if anything happened to it." What I do see is a council which, for example, this week has stopped our crops from failing by outlawing pesticides that our government were too toothless to, probably due to financial interests and lobbying.
They interfere in sovereignty of nations by imposing rules they shouldn't be imposing. Like that very example you cited. Which will reduce the productivity of farm produce while causing an increase in argicultural pests which has serious financial implications for the farming sector (and the public as a result) while also causing a surge in infectious disease of agriculture.
The farming sector will be fine, unless of course we leave the EU, then they are properly fethed due to loss of subsidies. I will trust the academics that have conducted experiments on the effects of nicotine on bees ahead of the company that produces the pesticides, but then I'm somewhat skeptical when it comes to financial conflicts of interest in science.
Is that seriously why you think the EU is a "mafia"? Because they take experimental data ahead of political lobbying?
And these are exactly the sorts of things they should be imposing rules on, as it is quite apparent that our government do not have the interests of the people in mind when they make policy on such matters.
Academics can claim a lot of things, but not all Academics agree with one another on experimental results. The bee situation is inherently controversial. Again, how does removing pesticides help the productivity of the farm or the health of the vegetables?
The EU doesn't hold any more more interest for the people than the average thug on a street does. It only holds the interests of its favored countries and its leaders pockets.
Today, it is the sabotaging of one nations farming....another it may very well be removal of dissenters...or a systematic extermination of a group of people.
Academics can claim a lot of things, but not all Academics agree with one another on experimental results. The bee situation is inherently controversial. Again, how does removing pesticides help the productivity of the farm or the health of the vegetables?
If you don't understand how pollination works I'm not sure I can help you.
The EU doesn't hold any more more interest for the people than the average thug on a street does. It only holds the interests of its favored countries and its leaders pockets.
The ECHR seems to suggest otherwise, as does pretty much all of the legislation from the European Parliament. And regarding the lining of pockets, I notice one person taking vast expenses is Farage, 2 million a year which basically pays for UKIP.
Today, it is the sabotaging of one nations farming....another it may very well be removal of dissenters...or a systematic extermination of a group of people.
Just... wow. Firstly, how is it "one nations farming" when it's an EU-wide directive? Secondly, do you honestly believe that the EU, which is governed by the ECHR is more or less likely to engage in such ridiculous claims than a government which wishes to dispose of human rights entirely? Seriously though, wind down the hyperbole and stop claiming everyone is trying to reenact the holocaust, it's just a little bit silly.
If you don't understand how pollination works I'm not sure I can help you.
I've got a degree in Biology. Stopping pesticides may help bees survive, but it won't do much when its the weather which is killing them more. Besides, it still doesn't answer the problem of plant-borne diseases which WILL increase with no pesticides to keep the insects that cause it at bay.
Farage is crooked, its no doubt. But then, so is the salary of the top dogs at the EU a lot worse.
do you honestly believe that the EU, which is governed by the ECHR is more or less likely to engage in such ridiculous claims than a government which wishes to dispose of human rights entirely?
Yes? Considering they have countries with extreme human rights issues on board...
Nobody is calling for a ban on all pesticides, they are banning neonicotinoids, and even then they are still allowing their use during the winter and in some other cases where they will not come into contact with bees. You have degree in biology so you know as well as I do that neonicotinoids are not the only form of pesticide.
Any citizen of any EU country can bring a case to the European Court as the highest court of appeal, it is higher than our Supreme Court and our House of Lords, it is the same throughout the rest of Europe. The only country I personally feel should be kicked off being a signatory of the ECHR is Russia.
I do wonder how we went from a country that that told white American soldiers to take a hike when they tried to stop blacks using the same pubs / clubs as them in WWII, to where we are today. From what I can see most Brits have no problem with immigration, all they ask is that you pay your way, whatever colour you are. Many other countries have the same policy. When I was looking at going to New Zealand to improve my rugby I still had to have about £2000 in savings and a job lined up, which to me seemed fair enough.
As per usual over here you have right wing using this to hide their racist views and the left wing saying that anybody who mentions immigration restrictions is a racist. The trouble is both sides are the ones who shout the loudest, so unfortunately the press repeats what they have to say and the politicians respond in a kneejerk reaction.
Wolfstan wrote: I do wonder how we went from a country that that told white American soldiers to take a hike when they tried to stop blacks using the same pubs / clubs as them in WWII, to where we are today. From what I can see most Brits have no problem with immigration, all they ask is that you pay your way, whatever colour you are. Many other countries have the same policy. When I was looking at going to New Zealand to improve my rugby I still had to have about £2000 in savings and a job lined up, which to me seemed fair enough.
As per usual over here you have right wing using this to hide their racist views and the left wing saying that anybody who mentions immigration restrictions is a racist. The trouble is both sides are the ones who shout the loudest, so unfortunately the press repeats what they have to say and the politicians respond in a kneejerk reaction.
Completely agree with this. Both sides are stupid, you either think all non british people are naturally bad solely because of their colour or country of origin, or you believe any talk around sensitive areas should be labelled as racist and offensive.
BlapBlapBlap wrote: Am I the only person who wants Britain to stay in the EU?
I don't and probably never will have a vote (Norwegian Citizenship), but one of the distinguishing features of Britain is the sheer cultural variety and integration. Unlike many countries, most communities actually function together really well.
And I feel that UKIP doesn't understand the purpose of the EU; it's really a huge support and governing network across Europe, not just a money sink.
That's the problem. It simply does not happen. Right now around where I live (funnily enough where UKIP got the biggest vote (Boston in Lincolnshire)) there are segregated enclaves of eastern europeans. The vast majority of them refusing to even associate with their adopted countries. Not even attempting to assimilate is not going to endear yourselves to the locals. Having your own shops and barbers (yes, really. Albatross pointed out in another thread there is a Poles only barbers) gives the impression you're walling yourself up and just looking to fleece the country for every penny. Add in the fact you quite literally cannot communicate with some groups as they have no reason to learn our country's language due to staying within their little cliques just raises tensions further.
FWIW the same goes for the enclaves of Brits abroad in countries like Spain. It's just offensive.
That's the problem. It simply does not happen. Right now around where I live (funnily enough where UKIP got the biggest vote (Boston in Lincolnshire)) there are segregated enclaves of eastern europeans. The vast majority of them refusing to even associate with their adopted countries. Not even attempting to assimilate is not going to endear yourselves to the locals. Having your own shops and barbers (yes, really. Albatross pointed out in another thread there is a Poles only barbers) gives the impression you're walling yourself up and just looking to fleece the country for every penny. Add in the fact you quite literally cannot communicate with some groups as they have no reason to learn our country's language due to staying within their little cliques just raises tensions further.
FWIW the same goes for the enclaves of Brits abroad in countries like Spain. It's just offensive.
I agree that it is insulting to have such ghettoisation, but I don't believe that the uniculturalism that UKIP favour is helpful. Britain has, for centuries, assimilated every culture that has arrived on these shores and there's no reason to think our current situation will be any different. It may take a generation, but integration will happen, and we as a society will be better for it.
I don't really know what else the government can do regarding Romanians and Bulgarians, imposing limits is out of the question, as the limits we did impose are now running out and can't be reinstated. But I also doubt we will see the influx we did from Poland, the country is in a very different state to what it was then and there simply aren't assured jobs for them to take. Meaning they would have to face no money and vastly higher costs of living in comparison to the rest of Europe.
I may be off base here, but I don't think you quite understand what assimilation means.
If a person's culture is assimilated, it means they have been absorbed into the dominate culture completely. Someone moving from Bulgaria gradually loses their own culture and takes on the culture of the place they now live. It may not be complete, but they do lose a portion of their original culture. This process normally takes at least a generation, with the original immigrant keeping most of their original culture and the subsequent generation(s) having a mostly the new culture.
But that isn't what appears to be happening in Britain. It appears immigrants a secluding themselves in pockets of their own culture and not really assimilating.
While not inherently bad, it can be damaging if there is zero assimilation.
here in the US we do have cultural pockets. many cities have their China-town, Italian section, etc...
But while they do retain their original cultural identity, they do still gain American cultural traits. Including speaking the language.
From what I've heard, this is not whats happening in Britain. Its more like straight up voluntary segregation.
British culture has taken bits from every group that has come here, and because of this British culture is like some rich tapestry interwoven with all sorts of interesting stuff.
You acknowledge that assimilation takes a generation and then claim that it isn't happening currently, except the Polish influx is less than a decade old, so its unlikely in the extreme that assimilation will have occurred by now. The cultures that arrived in the 60s and 70s have assimilated really well, the West Indians and those from the sub-continent, there are some rare exceptions, but on the whole second generation immigrants are closer to being British than being from their genetic land of origin.
Grey Templar wrote: I may be off base here, but I don't think you quite understand what assimilation means.
You are off base, considering I'm a student of social science and have recently worked on the subject of Britishness and multiculturalism, its one of the few things I can claim any authority on.
Grey Templar wrote: I may be off base here, but I don't think you quite understand what assimilation means.
If a person's culture is assimilated, it means they have been absorbed into the dominate culture completely. Someone moving from Bulgaria gradually loses their own culture and takes on the culture of the place they now live. It may not be complete, but they do lose a portion of their original culture. This process normally takes at least a generation, with the original immigrant keeping most of their original culture and the subsequent generation(s) having a mostly the new culture.
But that isn't what appears to be happening in Britain. It appears immigrants a secluding themselves in pockets of their own culture and not really assimilating.
While not inherently bad, it can be damaging if there is zero assimilation.
here in the US we do have cultural pockets. many cities have their China-town, Italian section, etc...
But while they do retain their original cultural identity, they do still gain American cultural traits. Including speaking the language.
From what I've heard, this is not whats happening in Britain. Its more like straight up voluntary segregation.
Yup, there was an article in one of the papers recently (Daily Express IIRC) that described it as an "unspoken apartheid". It is a massive elephant in the room and us Brits are simply doing what we do best: keeping a stiff upper lip and getting on with it, as we see our towns we grew up in get overrun by immigrant populations (this is mainly affecting the east coast of Britain with areas like Peterborough and Boston being some of the most egregious examples).
For full disclosure there are some lovely immigrants. The Polish family that live above me are really nice neighbours; though his countryman that lives 2 doors down from me is an inconsiderate dick whom he dislikes too as he keeps his baby awake by blasting music throughout the flats during the day. His argument as to why this is acceptable? "it's not dark.". It's things like this that show that certain cultures are not getting certain aspects of how we operate within this country and then are unwilling to learn and keep to their own cliques.
You acknowledge that assimilation takes a generation and then claim that it isn't happening currently, except the Polish influx is less than a decade old, so its unlikely in the extreme that assimilation will have occurred by now. The cultures that arrived in the 60s and 70s have assimilated really well, the West Indians and those from the sub-continent, there are some rare exceptions, but on the whole second generation immigrants are closer to being British than being from their genetic land of origin.
Weirdly I work with a Czech girl whom I was unaware was first generation until a few months ago. She's about 20-21 and only came to the UK about 10 years ago with her mother. I was convinced she was born here.
Yeah, I do have a view that if you are going to move to another country permanently you should speak the language and at least try to adjust to the cultural norms.
If you want horror stories regarding people not engaging then I used to live in St. Pauls in Bristol, which has a reputation for being something of a ghetto and has a history of racial tension. In my experience it was fine and I was regularly accepted despite being white. However in recent years there has been a massive influx of Somalians, which has lead to all sorts of trouble as they have arrived from a lawless society and simply don't understand how we work. But I would happily put my life savings on their children being far better adjusted to our way of life. Socialisation doesn't just come from the immediate family group, but from a much wider pool, and those children will have to engage with our society.
Yeah, but the process will be slowed if the people in question are all living together and only hanging out with each other. This will make assimilation much slower as they are still living in a transplanted culture. It could even make their cultural feelings stronger if they develop an "Us vs Them" mentality.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, but the process will be slowed if the people in question are all living together and only hanging out with each other. This will make assimilation much slower as they are still living in a transplanted culture. It could even make their cultural feelings stronger if they develop an "Us vs Them" mentality.
Its not a transplanted culture though, its a hodgepodge of all sorts of cultures, Somali, Jamaican, Indian, Pakistani etc. all within a small area. Then you have the fact that children are schooled in British classrooms by British teachers and have to engage with other children from all sorts of other cultures, they watch television and film and get socialised through that as well. We don't have the Chinatowns and Little Italys that you guys do, its more residential areas being based on socio-economic status. It's just that most immigrants share socio-economic groupings as well as cultural ones.
dæl wrote: We don't have the Chinatowns and Little Italys that you guys do, its more residential areas being based on socio-economic status.
I wouldn't go that far. Here in Manchester there are definite enclaves. I live in the second largest Jewish enclave in the UK, and it's definitely obvious. Not that I mind. Then there's Curry Mile, Cheetham Hill, Moss Side and Longsight... It's the same in most large (and some small) UK towns and cities. There is even an identifiable 'Asian' area in Middlesbrough, and that's tiny compared to say, London. And don't get me started on Bradford. If anyone wants to know why there is concern about immigration and racial tension, go to Bradford. It's not a British city any more, effectively.
As someone who lives in a country that has openly embraced the "mosaic" approach to immigration, I feel that I should point out that said mosaic approach really does encourage ethnic enclaves, which often leads to ghettoization simply by the nature of many immigrants being of a lower socioeconomic standing. This is not to say that it prevents immersion; but it does slow the process down, often on a generational scale.
I'm personally not a fan of the mosaic approach for the aforementioned reasons; however what the UKIP seems to be encouraging is terrible on its face: homogenous cultures are as boring as white-people-church. I've always been a fan of the idea the US used to put forward in theory (if not in practice): the melting pot. That is, adding tin to copper doesn't give you more copper; it creates bronze, which is a far better and stronger material. I've always seen this theory as having the best of both worlds: a situation where everyone does integrate, but retains their old culture in the process of adding it to the whole.
Or maybe I just love being able to get some Vietnamese phở and some Lebanese baba ghanoush on the same block.
Maybe the problem is that the culture trying to do the assimilation is now very strong, due to many years of assimilation of cultures.
the pot has settled somewhat, and now has a strong identity of its own. And thus is reluctant to accept new things, and the reverse is also true. Its difficult to let yourself be absorbed by a strong culture. There is some sort of natural aversion to the stronger culture shock.
Its almost like its easier to merge 2 weaker cultures than to mix a strong culture with another culture(strong or weak)
Part of the problem has been that the immigration from Eastern Europe was at unprecedented levels. Much is made of the Windrush Generation and how excellently they adapted to British life (often in the face of hostility), becoming 'more British than the Brits', fulfilling vital roles within society by becoming nurses, posties and busdrivers. Indeed, we are justifiably proud of our vibrant British Carribean community.
Two things, though: People from the 'West Indies', at that time, shared many of our cultural values due to the Empire/Commonwealth heritage of those places. In fact, I would feel more kinship with a Jamaican or a Barbadian than I would with a Pole, on balance.
The other thing is that the Windrush Generation was a lot smaller than the influx of Eastern Europeans was under New Labour. Considerably so.
Grey Templar wrote:Maybe the problem is that the culture trying to do the assimilation is now very strong, due to many years of assimilation of cultures.
the pot has settled somewhat, and now has a strong identity of its own. And thus is reluctant to accept new things
That's actually one of the definitions of conservatism.
Grey Templar wrote: here in the US we do have cultural pockets. many cities have their China-town, Italian section, etc...
But while they do retain their original cultural identity, they do still gain American cultural traits. Including speaking the language.
From what I've heard, this is not whats happening in Britain. Its more like straight up voluntary segregation.
There is always, always a crop of angry people complaining that this current crop of immigrants aren't like us. Whether it was the Chinese, or the Southern Europeans or whoever, they'll grudgingly admit oh sure, people complained about that last crop of immigrants and they got it wrong beacuse those immigrants turned out to be just fine... but this new crop of immigrants really are failing to assimilate. This time we are totally right and this new crop is terrible... until of course a generation passes, it becomes clear that this group is just like all the other groups and inter-generational assimilation is happening just like it always has, but by then the angry people have moved on to the next wave of immigration to complain about.
I mean, ultimately we know a few things about people. We know that with a few exceptions, people basically want the happiest, easiest lives for themselves and their families. And we know they've got a brain in their head, so that no matter what they're told they'll look around and see what is really the happiest, easiest life possible for them.
From there, if you honestly believe that our materialist, liberal lifestyle really is as good as is it can be for people today, then inter-generational assimilation becomes, basically, inevitable.
White Britons Culturally Segregated Due To Retreat From Minority Areas A "retreat" of white Britons from areas where minorities live is limiting cultural integration, according to research by think tank Demos. Analysis of Census 2011 figures show that 45% of ethnic minorities in England and Wales live in areas where less than half the population is white British, while 41% live in wards that are less than half white.
Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equalities Commission and Demos Associate, said white Britons choosing not to live in minority-dominated areas "ought to make us a little anxious". He said: "This very interesting piece of research reveals a number of vital findings about how people in England and Wales are living together. First, it shows a kind of 'Ambridge effect' - a welcome minority advance into areas previously only the preserve of the white majority.
He added: "It also demonstrates a greater degree of ethnic mixing within cities, although unfortunately this appears to be mostly between minorities. What ought to make us a little anxious is the 'majority retreat' it has unearthed - white people leaving minority-led areas and not being replaced - which isn't good news for the cause of integration."
The 4.1 million ethnic minorities who now live in white minority areas is a significant increase from the 2001 Census, when only around 1 million minority Britons lived in such wards.
A statement from Demos said: "Demos researchers attribute this mainly to white British people choosing not to move to minority-dominated areas, in what Trevor Phillips has described as 'majority retreat'. "In these areas, departing white British are replaced by immigration or by the natural growth of the minority population. Over time, the end result of this process is a spiral of white British demographic decline." But integration between ethnic minorities is now more common than it was during the last census in 2001.
Demos said minority white areas were generally multi-minority, since new British minorities such as Somalis have taken up housing vacated by established minorities, such as Afro-Caribbeans. Figures also show that more ethnic minorities are moving to live in white-dominated rural parts of the country, with fewer than 800 wards which are more than 98% white compared with more than 5,000 in 2001.
Eric Kaufmann, a professor at Birkbeck College and HuffPost blogger who carried out the detailed analysis, said: "These results present a mixed picture. While ethnic mixing and integration is being helped by more minority people moving into England's whitest areas, the most concentrated minority areas are just becoming more so. "This is essentially due to a large increase in the ethnic minority population in its areas of concentration over the past ten years due to natural growth and immigration. This trend has outpaced minorities' wider spread across the country."
David Goodhart, director of Demos, said the limited integration would lead to further problems with employment and familiarity with cultural codes. He said: "The greater concentration of the ethnic minority population means there is less opportunity for interaction with the white mainstream. One problem with this relates to employment. Most jobs come through knowing someone, and most of those hiring for good jobs are from the white majority. A growing population which is geographically separate and has limited familiarity with majority cultural codes or connection to majority networks may find its occupational mobility reduced. Canadian studies, for example, show that immigrants in cities with larger immigrant shares of the population (i.e. Toronto, Vancouver) perform less well against the national average than immigrants in smaller, less diverse cities."
Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch said the findings were a sign that Britain is becoming more segregated. He said: "This is extremely serious. It is undeniable evidence that we have indeed been sleepwalking into segregation as Trevor Phillips warned seven years ago and it is the clear result of Labour's mass immigration policy. Public dismay at the pace of change in our communities largely explains why so many voted as they did in last week's local elections. The case for a sharp reduction in immigration is now overwhelming; we cannot possibly integrate new arrivals on anything like the present scale."
This is some pretty interesting research, and shows that it not minorities who are choosing to ghettoise themselves, as they are living in culturally diverse areas, it's just the majority culture has removed itself.
I intend on voting UKIP in the next election. I live in an inner city area of Nottingham and it's essentially a foreign country. The people at work are also overwealmingly foreign, though the people who run it are all English.
edit - over-reliance on those bs "studies" is part of the reason politicians are so detatched from actual English people. You don't need a god-damn study to tell you that English people are being pushed out of areas in English cities, anyone could tell you that. And it's been going on for a long time.
BryllCream wrote: edit - over-reliance on those bs "studies" is part of the reason politicians are so detatched from actual English people. You don't need a god-damn study to tell you that English people are being pushed out of areas in English cities, anyone could tell you that. And it's been going on for a long time.
Yeah who needs evidence or data or facts to make policy, what we should do is just make up what we like and make decisions that effect 60million people based on a hunch.
Noone is being "pushed" anywhere, people choose where they live. If you don't like foreigners then sure you might not want to live near them but that's your issue, not anyone elses.
BryllCream wrote: edit - over-reliance on those bs "studies" is part of the reason politicians are so detatched from actual English people. You don't need a god-damn study to tell you that English people are being pushed out of areas in English cities, anyone could tell you that. And it's been going on for a long time.
Yeah who needs evidence or data or facts to make policy, what we should do is just make up what we like and make decisions that effect 60million people based on a hunch.
Yes, actually. Politicians should be leaders of people, not psuedo-social scientists.
Noone is being "pushed" anywhere, people choose where they live. If you don't like foreigners then sure you might not want to live near them but that's your issue, not anyone elses.
In other words, the English people do not deserve their own nation-state?
Your post is excellent, on the one hand a denial that there is such a thing as culture at all, and that all social problems can be quantified and examined, and on the other hand an insistance that the English have no right to live around other English people. Bravo
BryllCream wrote: Yes, actually. Politicians should be leaders of people, not psuedo-social scientists.
Maybe it's just me, but generally I prefer decisions to be informed.
In other words, the English people do not deserve their own nation-state?
Britain is a nation state, or do you mean why can England not be solely English? Well if that's what you are after then you are a couple of thousand years behind the times.
Your post is excellent, on the one hand a denial that there is such a thing as culture at all, and that all social problems can be quantified and examined, and on the other hand an insistance that the English have no right to live around other English people. Bravo
Where did I claim there is no such thing as culture? I don't remember doing that, probably because that's not what I think. I think there is such a thing as culture, but it is redefined constantly.
All social problems can be quantified and examined.
Why would anyone have the right to say who lives near them, it's a little bit Alf Garnet to be saying who's allowed to move into the house down the street don't you think?
dæl wrote: Maybe it's just me, but generally I prefer decisions to be informed.
There are two problems with this.
First, not everything can be quantified. This is obvious to anyone who's not in the social sciences, but it lets politicians avoid blame - "I was only doing what the evidence suggested". It also suggests that there is only one way of doing things - there is no alternative allowed, and anyone who disagrees with the philosophy of the ruling elite must be intellectually flawed. This is obviously bs.
dæl wrote: Britain is a nation state, or do you mean why can England not be solely English? Well if that's what you are after then you are a couple of thousand years behind the times.
So no, you don't think that England should be English. Fair enough.
Why would anyone have the right to say who lives near them, it's a little bit Alf Garnet to be saying who's allowed to move into the house down the street don't you think?
No. In many parts of English cities, none of the people who live there are English. Signs in the shops are not in English, people do not speak in English, and you simply can't buy English food and drink.
White Britons Culturally Segregated Due To Retreat From Minority Areas A "retreat" of white Britons from areas where minorities live is limiting cultural integration, according to research by think tank Demos. Analysis of Census 2011 figures show that 45% of ethnic minorities in England and Wales live in areas where less than half the population is white British, while 41% live in wards that are less than half white.
Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equalities Commission and Demos Associate, said white Britons choosing not to live in minority-dominated areas "ought to make us a little anxious". He said: "This very interesting piece of research reveals a number of vital findings about how people in England and Wales are living together. First, it shows a kind of 'Ambridge effect' - a welcome minority advance into areas previously only the preserve of the white majority.
He added: "It also demonstrates a greater degree of ethnic mixing within cities, although unfortunately this appears to be mostly between minorities. What ought to make us a little anxious is the 'majority retreat' it has unearthed - white people leaving minority-led areas and not being replaced - which isn't good news for the cause of integration."
The 4.1 million ethnic minorities who now live in white minority areas is a significant increase from the 2001 Census, when only around 1 million minority Britons lived in such wards.
A statement from Demos said: "Demos researchers attribute this mainly to white British people choosing not to move to minority-dominated areas, in what Trevor Phillips has described as 'majority retreat'. "In these areas, departing white British are replaced by immigration or by the natural growth of the minority population. Over time, the end result of this process is a spiral of white British demographic decline." But integration between ethnic minorities is now more common than it was during the last census in 2001.
Demos said minority white areas were generally multi-minority, since new British minorities such as Somalis have taken up housing vacated by established minorities, such as Afro-Caribbeans. Figures also show that more ethnic minorities are moving to live in white-dominated rural parts of the country, with fewer than 800 wards which are more than 98% white compared with more than 5,000 in 2001.
Eric Kaufmann, a professor at Birkbeck College and HuffPost blogger who carried out the detailed analysis, said: "These results present a mixed picture. While ethnic mixing and integration is being helped by more minority people moving into England's whitest areas, the most concentrated minority areas are just becoming more so. "This is essentially due to a large increase in the ethnic minority population in its areas of concentration over the past ten years due to natural growth and immigration. This trend has outpaced minorities' wider spread across the country."
David Goodhart, director of Demos, said the limited integration would lead to further problems with employment and familiarity with cultural codes. He said: "The greater concentration of the ethnic minority population means there is less opportunity for interaction with the white mainstream. One problem with this relates to employment. Most jobs come through knowing someone, and most of those hiring for good jobs are from the white majority. A growing population which is geographically separate and has limited familiarity with majority cultural codes or connection to majority networks may find its occupational mobility reduced. Canadian studies, for example, show that immigrants in cities with larger immigrant shares of the population (i.e. Toronto, Vancouver) perform less well against the national average than immigrants in smaller, less diverse cities."
Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch said the findings were a sign that Britain is becoming more segregated. He said: "This is extremely serious. It is undeniable evidence that we have indeed been sleepwalking into segregation as Trevor Phillips warned seven years ago and it is the clear result of Labour's mass immigration policy. Public dismay at the pace of change in our communities largely explains why so many voted as they did in last week's local elections. The case for a sharp reduction in immigration is now overwhelming; we cannot possibly integrate new arrivals on anything like the present scale."
This is some pretty interesting research, and shows that it not minorities who are choosing to ghettoise themselves, as they are living in culturally diverse areas, it's just the majority culture has removed itself.
Erm, it's not saying that at all, by the way. It's saying that minorities are ghettoising themselves, and that it's exacerbated by 'white flight', essentially. You were certainly quick to jump on the it's 'all whitey's fault' bandwagon there, but I suppose that's to be expected...
BryllCream wrote: First, not everything can be quantified. This is obvious to anyone who's not in the social sciences, but it lets politicians avoid blame - "I was only doing what the evidence suggested". It also suggests that there is only one way of doing things - there is no alternative allowed, and anyone who disagrees with the philosophy of the ruling elite must be intellectually flawed. This is obviously bs.
Everything can be quantified. If you can provide me with an example of something which cannot be measured then please do.
Social science certainly does not suggest there is only one way of doing things, it is not maths or physics, everything in social science is debatable and down to interpretation. But to interpret things you need to first know the data. That is what studies provide, the raw facts from the research.
So no, you don't think that England should be English. Fair enough.
Define English.
No. In many parts of English cities, none of the people who live there are English. Signs in the shops are not in English, people do not speak in English, and you simply can't buy English food and drink.
As the article I posted shows this is down to "English" people leaving areas when immigrants move in, despite immigrants moving into all areas rather than immigrant dominated ones. You can't vacate an area and then complain when the local businesses move because the market has changed. Besides, I don't actually think you're right on this, I've lived in a majorly non-white area and easily got hold of English food and drink, while also having a vast plethora of other choices.
Erm, it's not saying that at all, by the way. It's saying that minorities are ghettoising themselves, and that it's exacerbated by 'white flight', essentially. You were certainly quick to jump on the it's 'all whitey's fault' bandwagon there, but I suppose that's to be expected...
Did you miss these bits?
First, it shows a kind of 'Ambridge effect' - a welcome minority advance into areas previously only the preserve of the white majority.
Figures also show that more ethnic minorities are moving to live in white-dominated rural parts of the country, with fewer than 800 wards which are more than 98% white compared with more than 5,000 in 2001.
While ethnic mixing and integration is being helped by more minority people moving into England's whitest areas, the most concentrated minority areas are just becoming more so.
Doesn't look like people ghettoising themselves to me. Ghettoising means living among your own culture, immigrant isn't a culture, so moving to an area with lots of immigrants of other cultures isn't ghettoisation.
BryllCream wrote: First, not everything can be quantified. This is obvious to anyone who's not in the social sciences, but it lets politicians avoid blame - "I was only doing what the evidence suggested". It also suggests that there is only one way of doing things - there is no alternative allowed, and anyone who disagrees with the philosophy of the ruling elite must be intellectually flawed. This is obviously bs.
Everything can be quantified. If you can provide me with an example of something which cannot be measured then please do.
Social science certainly does not suggest there is only one way of doing things, it is not maths or physics, everything in social science is debatable and down to interpretation. But to interpret things you need to first know the data. That is what studies provide, the raw facts from the research.
Anyone in politics knows that you can get "evidence" for whatever policy you want to implement. It's simply a ruse to present liberalism as being objectively and undeniably true.
As the article I posted shows this is down to "English" people leaving areas when immigrants move in, despite immigrants moving into all areas rather than immigrant dominated ones. You can't vacate an area and then complain when the local businesses move because the market has changed. Besides, I don't actually think you're right on this, I've lived in a majorly non-white area and easily got hold of English food and drink, while also having a vast plethora of other choices.
English people move out because foreigners move in, yes. Describing how it happens doesn't prove a point.
You clearly got lucky then. Where I live the *only* places you can get English foods are supermarkets. There are no English butchers, bakers or chip shops at all.
First, it shows a kind of 'Ambridge effect' - a welcome minority advance into areas previously only the preserve of the white majority.
Figures also show that more ethnic minorities are moving to live in white-dominated rural parts of the country, with fewer than 800 wards which are more than 98% white compared with more than 5,000 in 2001.
While ethnic mixing and integration is being helped by more minority people moving into England's whitest areas, the most concentrated minority areas are just becoming more so.
Doesn't look like people ghettoising themselves to me. Ghettoising means living among your own culture, immigrant isn't a culture, so moving to an area with lots of immigrants of other cultures isn't ghettoisation.
You can't blame someone for wanting to move out of an area that they lived in, if no one on their street speaks English any more.
All of which can be measured in a large sample, closed question questionnaire.
Love is an odd one and I'll grant you that it's pretty unmeasurable, but I'm not sure of how it pertains to social problems.
Anyone in politics knows that you can get "evidence" for whatever policy you want to implement. It's simply a ruse to present liberalism as being objectively and undeniably true.
No, you can't just make up research data, not if you wish to continue working after the peer review anyway.
You can't define a culture.
So you want England for the undefined? Awesome, I can sort you that out tomorrow.
English people move out because foreigners move in, yes. Describing how it happens doesn't prove a point.
You don't think the sequence of events is important here? People don't close down all the English shops in the hope of a flood of immigrants.
You clearly got lucky then. Where I live the *only* places you can get English foods are supermarkets. There are no English butchers, bakers or chip shops at all.
You don't think that maybe you might be unlucky, or perhaps are dealing with conformation bias?
You can't blame someone for wanting to move out of an area that they lived in, if no one on their street speaks English any more.
People that are still living on the street when it hits that level of saturation are unlikely to care. What appears to be happening is that an immigrant family or two move in and then the most xenophobic move out and so another family or two move in to the vacated property and so the slightly less, but still quite, xenophobic move out and so on.
It's pointless arguing with someone who insists that hope, fear and unity can be quantified. It's obvious that you have emotional or cultural connection to the rest of England, so it's reasonable to assume that you will not understand the feelings of the English people.
The reason UKIP are doing so well is that the entire political class thinks the way that Dael does - that if an issue happens, they should institute focus groups, speak to experts, spin the press etc. At no point does it occur to them to implement the beliefs of the people who vote them into office.
BryllCream wrote: It's pointless arguing with someone who insists that hope, fear and unity can be quantified.
You didn't say hope, which is like love and is qualifiable data, you said...
fear, respect and unity
So here are some articles containing quantified data on fear of crime, respect for the police and social unity
The reason UKIP are doing so well is that the entire political class thinks the way that Dael does - that if an issue happens, they should institute focus groups, speak to experts, spin the press etc. At no point does it occur to them to implement the beliefs of the people who vote them into office.
The reason UKIP are doing "well" at the moment is because the press has been spun, people actually believe immigration is rising when net immigration has been in almost constant decline since 2004. They think that Britain has high immigration compared to the rest of Europe when it really doesn't. Also, economic decline will always see a rise in the far right, and mid term local elections and byelections will always see a massive amount of protest votes.
And yes, I do think that talking to experts is useful in deciding what course of action to take, which the powers that be don't (See Professor Nutt and his dismissal for example) when it doesn't suit their agenda. But you see I like expert knowledge and randomised trials and all that other scientific stuff which tells you what is true and what works, rather than rhetoric and pandering to the lowest common denominator.
But then I don't really mind this UKIP support as it will only achieve two things, steal Tory votes and send the Tories lurching to the right losing them the centre ground. Which just means the next election will be easily won by Labour, and while I don't support Labour they are certainly the lesser of the evils.
While ethnic mixing and integration is being helped by more minority people moving into England's whitest areas, the most concentrated minority areas are just becoming more so.
Doesn't look like people ghettoising themselves to me. Ghettoising means living among your own culture, immigrant isn't a culture, so moving to an area with lots of immigrants of other cultures isn't ghettoisation.
Really, you're going to start playing semantics to avoid having to admit that areas in which Immigrants are the majority aren't growing? Wow. Well, enjoy being on the wrong side of the argument for the next decade....
While ethnic mixing and integration is being helped by more minority people moving into England's whitest areas, the most concentrated minority areas are just becoming more so.
Doesn't look like people ghettoising themselves to me. Ghettoising means living among your own culture, immigrant isn't a culture, so moving to an area with lots of immigrants of other cultures isn't ghettoisation.
Really, you're going to start playing semantics to avoid having to admit that areas in which Immigrants are the majority aren't growing? Wow. Well, enjoy being on the wrong side of the argument for the next decade....
I wasn't arguing semantics, I was directly responding to your post.
Albatross wrote:It's saying that minorities are ghettoising themselves.
Areas in which immigrants are the majority are growing, I even acknowledge that in the last sentence.
England should be English, you should definitely be allowed to be so. Well, whilst we're at it...
On the condition that Cornwall gets to be Cornish and we get to throw out every single saxon, roman, norman, viking, angle and anyone else we decide we don't like. Piss off back to your own side of the water!!
They come over the Tamar bridge, take our jobs, move into neighborhoods and push the property prices up and all you can smell off em is jellied eels and kidney pies. Then they breed like rabbits and cover our beautiful beaches with their offspring, set up 'artist colonies' and send their graphic designers and city financiers down to set up badly run ostrich farms or alpaca ranches.
They should learn to speak Cornish is what they should do, immigrant scum have no respect for our traditional values. I used to hear them gibbering away in their filthy mongrel tongue on the bus, if I could stop dry-heaving due to the eel smell long enough that is...
Oh yeah and they bring their invasive and demanding religion as well, Cornwall is a Pagan country and they need to follow traditional Pagan values, not demand we recognize their religion as equal, showing up these few hundred years with their 'one god' nonsense. If they don't like it, they should bugger off home!
BryllCream wrote: It's pointless arguing with someone who insists that hope, fear and unity can be quantified. It's obvious that you have emotional or cultural connection to the rest of England, so it's reasonable to assume that you will not understand the feelings of the English people. .[/i]
What a load of gak, do you seriously believe that?
England should be English, you should definitely be allowed to be so. Well, whilst we're at it...
On the condition that Cornwall gets to be Cornish and we get to throw out every single saxon, roman, norman, viking, angle and anyone else we decide we don't like. Piss off back to your own side of the water!!
They come over the Tamar bridge, take our jobs, move into neighborhoods and push the property prices up and all you can smell off em is jellied eels and kidney pies. Then they breed like rabbits and cover our beautiful beaches with their offspring, set up 'artist colonies' and send their graphic designers and city financiers down to set up badly run ostrich farms or alpaca ranches.
They should learn to speak Cornish is what they should do, immigrant scum have no respect for our traditional values. I used to hear them gibbering away in their filthy mongrel tongue on the bus, if I could stop dry-heaving due to the eel smell long enough that is...
Oh yeah and they bring their invasive and demanding religion as well, Cornwall is a Pagan country and they need to follow traditional Pagan values, not demand we recognize their religion as equal, showing up these few hundred years with their 'one god' nonsense. If they don't like it, they should bugger off home!
KURNOW BYS VYKEN!
Er...you're an American now. Therefore it should be. Pinche Gringo, speak Spanish!
dæl wrote: Here are some of UKIP's policies from this article.
Spoiler:
Ukip policies
Lower taxes "Abolish the tax on work – employers' National Insurance [NI]." This would lose around £50bn a year in revenue, at a stroke, reversing all progress in cutting the deficit since 2010.
"Take 4.5 million of low incomes out of tax with a simple, flat rate income tax … Merge 20 per cent basic income tax with 11 per cent NI to create a 31 per cent flat tax on all earned incomes over £11,500." This would create another vast hole in public finances, and mean tax cuts for all higher-rate taxpayers.
"Ukip have a long-standing policy to abolish inheritance tax." This would cost about £3bn a year.
"Global warming is not proven – wind power is futile. Scrap all green taxes, wind-turbine subsidies, adopt nuclear power to free us from dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil and gas."
"Cut taxes on small businesses." Unspecified.
Lower public spending "Public spending is increasing and the coalition's cuts do not scratch the surface of Labour's deficit. We must cut down government if we are to return to a sound economy."
Quangos: "Bring them under Parliament's control and cut the cost substantially". No definition of "substantial".
"Make real and rigorous cuts in foreign aid." The aid budget is about £10bn a year.
"By leaving the EU we save over £45m a day plus £60bn a year due to EU trade barriers, business regulation, waste, fraud." £60bn a year is equivalent to the annual spending of the entire Education Department.
Higher public spending "Spend an extra 40 per cent on defence annually." A cost of £19bn pa.
"Double prison places to enforce zero tolerance on crime." Cost about £4bn pa.
"Roll all state pensions and benefits into a simple, substantial citizen's pension." Uncosted.
Restore student grants, but abandon target of 50 per cent of young people going to university. Uncosted.
A better yesterday "Only by leaving the EU can we regain control of our borders."
"Life must mean life."
"Our traditional values have been undermined. Children are taught to be ashamed of our past. Multiculturalism has split our society. Political correctness is stifling free speech."
"Support grammar schools."
"End the ban on smoking in allocated rooms in public houses, clubs and hotels."
"Hold county-wide referenda on the hunting ban."
In this thread, I learned I am a racist, because most of that sounds pretty reasonable to me.
, as their latest publicity states that they want to get out of the EU so they can repel and expel immigrants.
Best vote no. That sounds a whole lot like work to me. repel AND expel? DUde thats two "pels." I'm tired just typing that.
They also want to compel those they can't repel and expel to learn English
Wouldn't learning English be important if the dominant language of the nation you live in is English? Hell I'm learning basic Japanese and I'm only going to be in the country for two weeks.
BryllCream wrote:First, not everything can be quantified. This is obvious to anyone who's not in the social sciences, but it lets politicians avoid blame - "I was only doing what the evidence suggested". It also suggests that there is only one way of doing things
Actually, it takes a tremendous amount of ignorance to believe that there are things we cannot quantify or that there is a singular interpretation of data. I mean, I cannot think of any social scientists, actual scientists, economists, mathematicians or, well, generally anyone except philosophers (maybe) and fools who would share that sentiment with you.
Bryllcream, as a Canadian, I'm lacking the understanding of some context here, I'm afraid, but I'm legitimately curious as to what your operational definition of "English" is, in the context of culture. I think I have a vague notion of what you're implying, but I'm not entirely certain, and before engaging with this conversation I'd appreciate being correctly informed as to exactly what you consider "English culture" to be.
Bryllcream wrote:The reason UKIP are doing so well is that the entire political class thinks the way that Dael does - that if an issue happens, they should institute focus groups, speak to experts, spin the press etc. At no point does it occur to them to implement the beliefs of the people who vote them into office.
How do the politicians know what the beliefs of the people who vote for them are, unless they hold focus groups and surveys?
This is an honest question; please let me know what your answer is.
purplefood wrote: It would be interesting to see a Lib Dem Labour coalition...
Sounds like a 'Quadruple Recession and No Border Control' party to me.
How do the politicians know what the beliefs of the people who vote for them are, unless they hold focus groups and surveys?
This is an honest question; please let me know what your answer is.
The romans knew when too much bureaucracy and red tape was severely hindering their nation. In those cases, they saw fit to suspend it to actually get some work done instead of endless debate with no result,
Bryllcream, as a Canadian, I'm lacking the understanding of some context here, I'm afraid, but I'm legitimately curious as to what your operational definition of "English" is, in the context of culture. I think I have a vague notion of what you're implying, but I'm not entirely certain, and before engaging with this conversation I'd appreciate being correctly informed as to exactly what you consider "English culture" to be.
Imagine the canadian government removed all 'traditionally' canadian foods with foods traditional to some generic middle eastern country. Imagine they did the same with your customs.
Could you argue it was still canada? or a transplant of a middle eastern country?
England should be English, you should definitely be allowed to be so. Well, whilst we're at it...
On the condition that Cornwall gets to be Cornish and we get to throw out every single saxon, roman, norman, viking, angle and anyone else we decide we don't like. Piss off back to your own side of the water!!
They come over the Tamar bridge, take our jobs, move into neighborhoods and push the property prices up and all you can smell off em is jellied eels and kidney pies. Then they breed like rabbits and cover our beautiful beaches with their offspring, set up 'artist colonies' and send their graphic designers and city financiers down to set up badly run ostrich farms or alpaca ranches.
They should learn to speak Cornish is what they should do, immigrant scum have no respect for our traditional values. I used to hear them gibbering away in their filthy mongrel tongue on the bus, if I could stop dry-heaving due to the eel smell long enough that is...
Oh yeah and they bring their invasive and demanding religion as well, Cornwall is a Pagan country and they need to follow traditional Pagan values, not demand we recognize their religion as equal, showing up these few hundred years with their 'one god' nonsense. If they don't like it, they should bugger off home!
Imagine the canadian government removed all 'traditionally' canadian foods with foods traditional to some generic middle eastern country. Imagine they did the same with your customs.
This has never happened. I would dearly love to see some proof that the UK government has done this in the UK though.
Mr Hyena wrote: The romans knew when too much bureaucracy and red tape was severely hindering their nation. In those cases, they saw fit to suspend it to actually get some work done instead of endless debate with no result,
Bryllcream, as a Canadian, I'm lacking the understanding of some context here, I'm afraid, but I'm legitimately curious as to what your operational definition of "English" is, in the context of culture. I think I have a vague notion of what you're implying, but I'm not entirely certain, and before engaging with this conversation I'd appreciate being correctly informed as to exactly what you consider "English culture" to be.
Imagine the canadian government removed all 'traditionally' canadian foods with foods traditional to some generic middle eastern country. Imagine they did the same with your customs.
Could you argue it was still canada? or a transplant of a middle eastern country?
1. Is your government regulating away your ability to boil vegetables into a flavourless mush? Could you please cite an example of this ever happening? Seriously.
2. You have no idea how much I would love more Middle Eastern cuisine. I swear, if I lived there I'd weigh 300 pounds. Or stone. Let's just say I'd be really fething fat.
3. What is a "traditional" Canadian food? I'm honestly unclear as to what that would be. Please give me an example of how long a dish must be part of a culture for it to be considered "traditional"; keeping in mind that Canada is not yet 150 years old and originally comprised of two cultures which were quite distinct from one another.
purplefood wrote: It would be interesting to see a Lib Dem Labour coalition...
Sounds like a 'Quadruple Recession and No Border Control' party to me.
Well that's nonsense considering it's the Conservatives who slowed growth and caused the double and triple dip recessions, and scrapped the UK Border Agency entirely.
How do the politicians know what the beliefs of the people who vote for them are, unless they hold focus groups and surveys?
This is an honest question; please let me know what your answer is.
The romans knew when too much bureaucracy and red tape was severely hindering their nation. In those cases, they saw fit to suspend it to actually get some work done instead of endless debate with no result,
I'm not sure advocating becoming a dictatorship is something you really want to be doing.
Bryllcream, as a Canadian, I'm lacking the understanding of some context here, I'm afraid, but I'm legitimately curious as to what your operational definition of "English" is, in the context of culture. I think I have a vague notion of what you're implying, but I'm not entirely certain, and before engaging with this conversation I'd appreciate being correctly informed as to exactly what you consider "English culture" to be.
Imagine the canadian government removed all 'traditionally' canadian foods with foods traditional to some generic middle eastern country. Imagine they did the same with your customs.
Could you argue it was still canada? or a transplant of a middle eastern country?
To all these people saying immigration is still too high, and the Conservatives have done nothing to tackle it, you may want to look into that a bit further. I'm not fond of Cameron's lot, but if there's one achievement they can boast of, its bringing down the net flow of migration. Here's the figures for the last few years, they show a fairly steady trend of general decline. I've provided a variety of sources, so that nobody can claim biased reporting.
England should be English, you should definitely be allowed to be so. Well, whilst we're at it...
On the condition that Cornwall gets to be Cornish and we get to throw out every single saxon, roman, norman, viking, angle and anyone else we decide we don't like. Piss off back to your own side of the water!!
They come over the Tamar bridge, take our jobs, move into neighborhoods and push the property prices up and all you can smell off em is jellied eels and kidney pies. Then they breed like rabbits and cover our beautiful beaches with their offspring, set up 'artist colonies' and send their graphic designers and city financiers down to set up badly run ostrich farms or alpaca ranches.
They should learn to speak Cornish is what they should do, immigrant scum have no respect for our traditional values. I used to hear them gibbering away in their filthy mongrel tongue on the bus, if I could stop dry-heaving due to the eel smell long enough that is...
Oh yeah and they bring their invasive and demanding religion as well, Cornwall is a Pagan country and they need to follow traditional Pagan values, not demand we recognize their religion as equal, showing up these few hundred years with their 'one god' nonsense. If they don't like it, they should bugger off home!
KURNOW BYS VYKEN!
The Cornish can be Cornish if they have the force to take their freedom from the English government, certainly. That is unlikely though, my dad has been an avid supporter of Cornish nationalism for decades and I am well aware of its middle class Islington roots
I am referring to English people having an English nation. The English people have more or less been driven from large swathes of cities in England, and that bothers people, whether liberal elites want to acknoledge it or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: To all these people saying immigration is still too high, and the Conservatives have done nothing to tackle it, you may want to look into that a bit further. I'm not fond of Cameron's lot, but if there's one achievement they can boast of, its bringing down the net flow of migration.
Net flow of migration is irrelevent. If 20 million immigrants move in, and 20 million British people immigrate, do you think that would make this island more or less British?
It's about cultural friction, the average citizen is not racist because of concerns over the strains that immigration puts on local services.
BryllCream wrote: It's about cultural friction, the average citizen is not racist because of concerns over the strains that immigration puts on local services.
Except of course that "strain" has been shown to be simply not true and the concern is just the result of the telegraph and mail scaremongering. I can show you a study if you wish, but I'm not going to waste my time finding it if you are just going to claim that all studies are false again.
BryllCream wrote:
Net flow of migration is irrelevent. If 20 million immigrants move in, and 20 million British people immigrate, do you think that would make this island more or less British?
You should try at least reading the evidence before disdaining it. If you actually check the figures, you'll note net flow, and general immigration are both down.
In other more simple speech. LESS. PEOPLE. COME. HERE. FACT.
Here's a chart to further aid your comprehension.
If you're going to argue, at least look at the evidence.
I suppose the next logical step for the 'deny at all costs' would be to say that the figures only account for legal immigration. But that's a flawed comparison, as there would be no way of knowing if illegal immigration increases or decreases. Because its illegal and thus unrecorded.
Ketara wrote: If you're going to argue, at least look at the evidence.
He doesn't need to look at evidence.
Anyone in politics knows that you can get "evidence" for whatever policy you want to implement. It's simply a ruse to present liberalism as being objectively and undeniably true.
BryllCream wrote:
Net flow of migration is irrelevent. If 20 million immigrants move in, and 20 million British people immigrate, do you think that would make this island more or less British?
You should try at least reading the evidence before disdaining it. If you actually check the figures, you'll note net flow, and general immigration are both down.
In other more simple speech. LESS. PEOPLE. COME. HERE. FACT.
Here's a chart to further aid your comprehension.
If you're going to argue, at least look at the evidence.
I suppose the next logical step for the 'deny at all costs' would be to say that the figures only account for legal immigration. But that's a flawed comparison, as there would be no way of knowing if illegal immigration increases or decreases. Because its illegal and thus unrecorded.
Spamming arguments with "CHECK THE EVIDENCE LOL EVIDENCE FACTS EVIDENCE IRREFUTABLE PROOF". The existance of evidence does prove ones facts, especially if you look at the arguments against immigration.
Migration has gone down certainly. It is still very high, and will likely increase as Romania+Bulgaria join. It is still causing a huge impact on our towns and cities, for all of the reasons stated above.
And feel free to remind me how the existance of that graph helps ease the nausia that millions of people feel at feeling like second class citizens in their own country.
dæl wrote:
BryllCream wrote: It's about cultural friction, the average citizen is not racist because of concerns over the strains that immigration puts on local services.
Except of course that "strain" has been shown to be simply not true and the concern is just the result of the telegraph and mail scaremongering. I can show you a study if you wish, but I'm not going to waste my time finding it if you are just going to claim that all studies are false again.
I don't know if there is a strain or not. I don't really care, as said above I was saying that the "strain" was irrilivent.
Spamming arguments with "CHECK THE EVIDENCE LOL EVIDENCE FACTS EVIDENCE IRREFUTABLE PROOF".
Wait. Did you just tell me off for 'spamming arguments' with evidence?
The existance of evidence does prove ones facts, especially if you look at the arguments against immigration.
You can argue as much as you like. It does absolutely nothing to affect the facts. I.e.
Fact: Immigration to this country is going down.
Fact. This is happening under David Cameron.
Whether or not you feel there are too many people of foreign birth already in the UK is something completely separate. Immigration from abroad to this country IS going down.
Spamming arguments with "CHECK THE EVIDENCE LOL EVIDENCE FACTS EVIDENCE IRREFUTABLE PROOF".
Wait. Did you just tell me off for 'spamming arguments' with evidence?
The existance of evidence does prove ones facts, especially if you look at the arguments against immigration.
You can argue as much as you like. It does absolutely nothing to affect the facts. I.e.
Fact: Immigration to this country is going down.
Fact. This is happening under David Cameron.
Whether or not you feel there are too many people of foreign birth already in the UK is something completely separate. Immigration from abroad to this country IS going down.
Right...okay.
This is a thread about a political party doing well in the polls. I am explaining some of the issues behind this, to which your retort is a graph. Does that make me feel any safer? Does it make my workplace any less divided?
This is a thread about a political party doing well in the polls. I am explaining some of the issues behind this, to which your retort is a graph. Does that make me feel any safer? Does it make my workplace any less divided?
You tell me. I addressed my initial post in here to several past statements by various people, that immigration is currently unaffected under Cameron. You then chose to respond in a contradictory manner to my assertion to the opposite.
What that has to do with your workplace is entirely within your own mind.
I mean let's face it, if you just point blank didn't read my post instead of just ignoring the evidence....well, that's pretty silly of you really.
purplefood wrote:How is the workplace divided?
It's not like they've hired cows or something?
They aren't so different that they have stopped being people...
Well let's see:
*Sexual harassment of white workers by Pakistani management
*Constant racism amongst various immigrants towards each other
*More or less universal hatred of immigrants by English workers
*Day to day problems caused by a significant amount of the workforce speaking little to no English
I could go on.
purplefood wrote:How is the workplace divided?
It's not like they've hired cows or something?
They aren't so different that they have stopped being people...
Ketara wrote:
You tell me. I addressed my initial post in here to several past statements by various people, that immigration is currently unaffected under Cameron. You then chose to respond in a contradictory sense to my assertion to the opposite.
What that has to do with your workplace is entirely within your own mind.
I mean let's face it, if you just point blank didn't read my post instead of just ignoring the evidence....well, that's pretty silly of you really.
I was correcting the notion of net migration being important when it's not. Actual immigration/emigration is what causes social tensions.
I was correcting the notion of net migration being important when it's not. Actual immigration/emigration is what causes social tensions.
And net migration is made up of.....wait for it..........*drum roll*.......Emigration and immigration figures! Which I then provided as part of my graph in more detail when it turned out you hadn't read the links!
Seriously mate, you should give this up already. You just posted a daft contradiction without reading the evidence I put up. Stop trying to make it out to be anything else.
BryllCream wrote: I'm not going to reply to that. You and I are clearly operating on different narratives.
Evidently. Which makes one wonder why on earth you bothered responding to my post in the first place.
....other than if you just skim-read it, assumed I was disagreeing with you in general, and jumped straight to keyboard without actually thinking about it.
That immigration is not an issue because it's gone down a bit? Somehow the decrease in the increase of an issue, means that the issue has gone away? No, I don't see that. Sorry.
BryllCream wrote: I'm not going to reply to that. You and I are clearly operating on different narratives.
Evidently. Which makes one wonder why on earth you bothered responding to my post in the first place.
....other than if you just skim-read it, assumed I was disagreeing with you in general, and jumped straight to keyboard without actually thinking about it.
Or as I said above, I was responding to you saying that net migration was important, and your response was a graph showing immigration and emigration. You agreed with me.
BryllCream wrote: That immigration is not an issue because it's gone down a bit? Somehow the decrease in the increase of an issue, means that the issue has gone away? No, I don't see that. Sorry.
But you'll note I never said those things. What I said was:
To all these people saying immigration is still too high, and the Conservatives have done nothing to tackle it, you may want to look into that a bit further. I'm not fond of Cameron's lot, but if there's one achievement they can boast of, its bringing down the net flow of migration. Here's the figures for the last few years, they show a fairly steady trend of general decline.
You added all that stuff about it 'not being an issue any more' yourself.
I have already said that I'd stop arguing with you because all you're doing is arguing for the sake of arguing - you keep insisting that I concede or give up, knowing full well that I won't and simply reply again, when we have no disagreement to begin with.
So I say again, I'm done with you. Please do not reply again or I will block you, which I am not particularly keen to do.
BryllCream wrote: I have already said that I'd stop arguing with you because all you're doing is arguing for the sake of arguing - you keep insisting that I concede or give up, knowing full well that I won't and simply reply again, when we have no disagreement to begin with.
I agree. We had no disagreement. Beyond you telling me facts are irrelevant, etc.
Which really begs the question as to why you bothered disagreeing in the first place.
To all these people saying immigration is still too high, and the Conservatives have done nothing to tackle it, you may want to look into that a bit further. I'm not fond of Cameron's lot, but if there's one achievement they can boast of, its bringing down the net flow of migration.
Your response would lead the average reader to believe, that you had just claimed that net migration figures were irrelevant to the reduction of immigration to this country. Which is patently absurd.
If that's not what you intended to say, then you may wish to phrase your contradictions better.
*Sexual harassment of white workers by Pakistani management
*Constant racism amongst various immigrants towards each other
*More or less universal hatred of immigrants by English workers
All of these things, depending on how they are manifested, are illegal. I would suggest speaking to the police, which will be far more effective than throwing away a vote on a far right party without a single realistic policy in it's manifesto.
*Sexual harassment of white workers by Pakistani management
*Constant racism amongst various immigrants towards each other
*More or less universal hatred of immigrants by English workers
All of these things, depending on how they are manifested, are illegal. I would suggest speaking to the police, which will be far more effective than throwing away a vote on a far right party without a single realistic policy in it's manifesto.
Right, and if I have a problem with drugs in my neighbourhood I should tell the police . These are all the result of the interactions of culture, not individual acts of malice (which do occasionally happen, but are dealt with).
BryllCream wrote: Right, and if I have a problem with drugs in my neighbourhood I should tell the police . These are all the result of the interactions of culture, not individual acts of malice (which do occasionally happen, but are dealt with).
Well yeah, if it is a problem then you should inform the police. That's what they exist for. Unchallenged unacceptable behaviour doesn't change.
About the only policy I agree with is a referendum on the EU and our continued involvement with it.
Its been decades since we signed up to the common market, urope now has its own parliament, and currency.
A referendum needs to be held as weve had next to no say on how 'deep' the UK wants to integrate with this.
Withdraw/accept the Euro and integrate/fine aw we are.
Its about time a referendum was held on the issue, and not just some half baked round of voting for an MEP.
BryllCream wrote: Yes, actually. Politicians should be leaders of people, not psuedo-social scientists.
"pseudo-social scientists"? Do you even understand what that means? I mean, are you actually claiming that these people are only pretending to be social scientists?
I'm reminded of that lady who went on a rant on the eve of WWI, talking about those 'so-called Germans'. I mean, whether or not you liked them they were German...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BryllCream wrote: It's pointless arguing with someone who insists that hope, fear and unity can be quantified. It's obvious that you have emotional or cultural connection to the rest of England, so it's reasonable to assume that you will not understand the feelings of the English people.
The reason UKIP are doing so well is that the entire political class thinks the way that Dael does - that if an issue happens, they should institute focus groups, speak to experts, spin the press etc. At no point does it occur to them to implement the beliefs of the people who vote them into office.
No, the reason the UKIP are doing well is because the economy in the UK is poor, and when the economy is poor people go in for vague nonsense that blames some random group for all their problems. Vague nonsense like "At no point does it occur to them to implement the beliefs of the people who vote them into office"
No, the reason the UKIP are doing well is because the economy in the UK is poor, and when the economy is poor people go in for vague nonsense that blames some random group for all their problems. Vague nonsense like "At no point does it occur to them to implement the beliefs of the people who vote them into office"
Our economy has trashed heavier than this in the past, with a far greater impact, yet to electoral boost to a right-wing party. What gives?
Or is it a coincidence that many English people feel marginilised by immigration, at the same time as an anti-immigration party is getting votes?
No, the reason the UKIP are doing well is because the economy in the UK is poor, and when the economy is poor people go in for vague nonsense that blames some random group for all their problems. Vague nonsense like "At no point does it occur to them to implement the beliefs of the people who vote them into office"
Our economy has trashed heavier than this in the past, with a far greater impact, yet to electoral boost to a right-wing party. What gives?
Or is it a coincidence that many English people feel marginilised by immigration, at the same time as an anti-immigration party is getting votes?
When was our economy worse? Because every time barring the late 40s (when a far right party wouldn't have been welcomed for other reasons) we have had a rise in the far right.
No, the reason the UKIP are doing well is because the economy in the UK is poor, and when the economy is poor people go in for vague nonsense that blames some random group for all their problems. Vague nonsense like "At no point does it occur to them to implement the beliefs of the people who vote them into office"
Our economy has trashed heavier than this in the past, with a far greater impact, yet to electoral boost to a right-wing party. What gives?
Or is it a coincidence that many English people feel marginilised by immigration, at the same time as an anti-immigration party is getting votes?
The BNP lost their one council seat, which doesn't argue for a strong anti-immigration movement so much as a complaint against the established parties. A protest vote, if you like.
It will be interesting to see how well UKIP do in four years, when they have a track record to look at.
Which fails to take into account the huge drop in prices of finished goods due to outsourcing in the third world. We're as rich now as we were in 2004, do you remember UKIP doing particularly well in 2004?
The BNP lost their one council seat, which doesn't argue for a strong anti-immigration movement so much as a complaint against the established parties. A protest vote, if you like.
It will be interesting to see how well UKIP do in four years, when they have a track record to look at.
Exactly, the fact that the BNP have been trounced in council elections would prove that this is *not* a xenophobic reaction caused by economic decline, as we've seen in France. More a sickening of the main parties - all of whom have identical policies on more or less everything.
If the conservative party adopted actual conservative policies on social issues, regardless of Europe, UKIP would collapse overnight.
Which fails to take into account the huge drop in prices of finished goods due to outsourcing in the third world. We're as rich now as we were in 2004, do you remember UKIP doing particularly well in 2004?
2004 is when the BNP were on the rise, which lead to the setting up of Unite Against Fascism (although this has more to do with terrorism fears than economic ones). The recession of the Late 70s/early 80s caused the rise of the National Front and the setting up of the BNP. The early 90s saw gains for the BNP at local levels. After 2008 the BNP saw more support leading to gaining two MEPs and an appearance on Question Time. The great depression caused the rise of the fascists ending in the Blackshirts.
Exactly, the fact that the BNP have been trounced in council elections would prove that this is *not* a xenophobic reaction caused by economic decline, as we've seen in France.
BNP support dwindles while UKIPs rises and you don't see the correlation?
Also do your research, the French voted in a socialist ahead of the right leaning, tough on immigration, Sarkozy.
Spamming arguments with "CHECK THE EVIDENCE LOL EVIDENCE FACTS EVIDENCE IRREFUTABLE PROOF".
Wait. Did you just tell me off for 'spamming arguments' with evidence?
The existance of evidence does prove ones facts, especially if you look at the arguments against immigration.
You can argue as much as you like. It does absolutely nothing to affect the facts. I.e.
Fact: Immigration to this country is going down.
Fact. This is happening under David Cameron.
Whether or not you feel there are too many people of foreign birth already in the UK is something completely separate. Immigration from abroad to this country IS going down.
Does your chart include illegal immigration? If so, how? Is illegal immigration an issue there (I imagine via people overstaying visas)?
What data is your chart using?
England should be English, you should definitely be allowed to be so. Well, whilst we're at it...
On the condition that Cornwall gets to be Cornish and we get to throw out every single saxon, roman, norman, viking, angle and anyone else we decide we don't like. Piss off back to your own side of the water!!
They come over the Tamar bridge, take our jobs, move into neighborhoods and push the property prices up and all you can smell off em is jellied eels and kidney pies. Then they breed like rabbits and cover our beautiful beaches with their offspring, set up 'artist colonies' and send their graphic designers and city financiers down to set up badly run ostrich farms or alpaca ranches.
They should learn to speak Cornish is what they should do, immigrant scum have no respect for our traditional values. I used to hear them gibbering away in their filthy mongrel tongue on the bus, if I could stop dry-heaving due to the eel smell long enough that is...
Oh yeah and they bring their invasive and demanding religion as well, Cornwall is a Pagan country and they need to follow traditional Pagan values, not demand we recognize their religion as equal, showing up these few hundred years with their 'one god' nonsense. If they don't like it, they should bugger off home!
KURNOW BYS VYKEN!
The Cornish can be Cornish if they have the force to take their freedom from the English government, certainly. That is unlikely though, my dad has been an avid supporter of Cornish nationalism for decades and I am well aware of its middle class Islington roots
You're funny, English.
You should go to The Swordfish in Newlyn and explain your wit to the lads there, perhaps on landing day. See how your humor enables you to enjoy the comfort of a beam trawl view of the open Atlantic.
Cornwall's nation status roots were set down in the 15th century, at the battle of Deptford Bridge, watered in the blood of the 20,000 fishermen, farmers, miners who marched to peacefully protest their taxation into starvation and were massacred by two English armies. Thereafter one in ten Cornish men, women and children were killed by violence of the English land owners and English army and entire villages cut off and starved to death for disobedience over the rest of that century. Cornwall was a nation unto it's self until the 18th century.
So, you want your mongrel country free of the newest batch of immigrants because of some deluded notion of an 'english people' but would deny my country, annexed by yours, it's own freedom because it lacks the 'force' to break away, I know why you fear the newest batch, they have better suntans than you.
Smacks of fascism to me, your country kept 'pure' but still occupying mine, I think I can gaze into the crystal ball and see just what sort of an 'England' you'd like...
reds8n wrote: UKIP councillor for Boston, Lincolnshire...
Well done Boston !
I loved the reaction from the locals. 'I'm not racist but...'.. 'They're taking our jobs...' Stay classy Lincolnshire.
Is it not true that we have a massive youth unemployment in this country though. If Immigration continues with lax controls, does that not make unemployment even worse? Seems common sense no matter how PC it is.
Is it not true that we have a massive youth unemployment in this country though. If Immigration continues with lax controls, does that not make unemployment even worse? Seems common sense no matter how PC it is.
There are minor effects but lots of other countries in Europe have higher immigration rates and lower youth unemployment rates.
Spoiler:
Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn.
Does immigration create greater unemployment or greater inactivity among existing workers? The first systematic study of this issue used data for 1983-2000 to analyse how changes in the share of migrants impact on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of existing workers (Dustmann, Fabbri and Preston 2005). It concluded that immigration had no statistically significant effect on the overall employment outcomes of UK-born workers. The study did, however, find statistically significant effects on specific educational groups of UK-born workers: immigration was found to have adverse effects on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of UK-born with intermediate education (defined as O level and equivalent) and a positive impact on employment outcomes of UK-born workers with advanced education (A-levels or university degrees).
A separate study carried out by researchers at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) analysed the impact of labour immigration of A8 workers on claimant unemployment during May 2004-November 2005 (Lemos and Portes 2008). The study found little evidence of an adverse effect. There is some evidence to suggest that, just like the impact on wages, the effects of immigration on unemployment differ between the short and long run. An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2003 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years) but has no significant impact in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2007).
Two recent studies have provided additional insights on the impact of immigration on employment in the UK using a time period which includes the latest recession. Lucchino, Rosazza-Bondibene and Portes (2012) used National Insurance Number (NINO) registrations data from 2002 to 2011 to explore the impact of immigration on claimant count rates (i.e. a proxy for unemployment) in 379 local authorities in England. The results suggest that there is no impact of immigration on the claimant count rate. This result holds even during periods of low economic growth or recession.
Research by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) studied the impact of migrants on the employment of UK-born people using data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for 1975-2010 (Migration Advisory Committee 2012). The study suggests that, overall, migrants have no impact on UK-born employment. However, the MAC also analysed the specific impacts of EU and non-EU migrants and also distinguished between two sub-periods: 1975-1994 and 1995-2010. It found that non-EU immigration was associated with a reduction in the employment of UK-born workers during 1995-2010. No statistically significant effects were found for EU immigration. The MAC analysis also suggests that the likelihood of a negative impact of immigration on employment of UK-born workers is likely to be greatest during economic downturns.
There are minor effects but lots of other countries in Europe have higher immigration rates and lower youth unemployment rates.
Then they must not be getting jobs, and going on the brew instead.
Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that our economy is fethed, or that youth employment has effectively been replaced with free labour from the Work Programme. Bear in mind the opposite is also true, there are countries such as Italy which have lower immigration and higher youth unemployment.
Does your chart include illegal immigration? If so, how? Is illegal immigration an issue there (I imagine via people overstaying visas)?
What data is your chart using?
As I said earlier, illegal immigration is impossible to gauge (being illegal means it is unrecorded, and unrecordable). So it could be going up or down, with no reliable way of knowing or guessing either way. What I have listed there are the official immigration and migration figures of people entering and leaving the country.
Whilst illegal immigration occurs in any first world nation, you tend to find that the majority of immigration comes from internal EU migration (the Polish for example). Primarily because they can move about unrestricted between EU nations, and so can come here in relatively unlimited numbers. But as a result of that, they are recorded accurately in the figures given earlier.
Well, one can gauge illegal immigration through careful studies. I'm wondering how much illegal immigration you're getting coming from outside the EU but being filtered through there.
Again not making a point, more asking for info.
Ok I agree with the Cornish being traitorous tin merchants. Sounds like a good gig if you can get it.
sebster wrote:"pseudo-social scientists"? Do you even understand what that means? I mean, are you actually claiming that these people are only pretending to be social scientists?
I'm reminded of that lady who went on a rant on the eve of WWI, talking about those 'so-called Germans'. I mean, whether or not you liked them they were German...
To be fair to the woman on the even of WWI, she may have been very old and simply remembered it more as being the Prussian-dominated German Confederation, and hence: "so-called Germans". I suppose that would be akin to saying "It'll always be Burma to me". On the other hand, I've got absolutely no explanation for what a "pseudo-social scientist" is.
And Bryllcream, I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions. They were asked honestly of you.
reds8n wrote: UKIP councillor for Boston, Lincolnshire...
Well done Boston !
I loved the reaction from the locals. 'I'm not racist but...'.. 'They're taking our jobs...' Stay classy Lincolnshire.
Is it not true that we have a massive youth unemployment in this country though. If Immigration continues with lax controls, does that not make unemployment even worse? Seems common sense no matter how PC it is.
It's not racist at all. Immigration from Eastern Europe is the cause of youth unemployment for this country, I don't see how that can be contested.
Do you think factories would simply stand idle and not bother advertising for vacancies if there were no immigrants? Do you think fields would lie fallow? Immigrants will simply work worse conditions for lower pay, the only people who profit from that are the owners.
Bryllcream, as a Canadian, I'm lacking the understanding of some context here, I'm afraid, but I'm legitimately curious as to what your operational definition of "English" is, in the context of culture. I think I have a vague notion of what you're implying, but I'm not entirely certain, and before engaging with this conversation I'd appreciate being correctly informed as to exactly what you consider "English culture" to be.
The culture of the English people. I can't really explain it, if you came here for a few weeks I could show you the mannerisms, the language, the attitudes of the English people, then perhaps you'd see how it contrasts so starkly with the hundreds of thousands of people who also live in our cities.
How do the politicians know what the beliefs of the people who vote for them are, unless they hold focus groups and surveys?
This is an honest question; please let me know what your answer is.
By being from those communities. 30 years ago, most Labour MPs were from a working class background, usually trade unionists. They *were* the people that they were there to represent, there was never any real question of that. Contrast to today where virtually all MPs, of all parties (the Conservatives are just as distant from their base, just look at the socially liberal policies advocated by the Conservative leadership, as opposed to what David Davies is saying), are simply university graduates who've gone into politics professionally, usually by working as researchers or aides in parliament. Those guys don't know jack gak about how the man in the street thinks or feels, all they know is the polls.
Do you think factories would simply stand idle and not bother advertising for vacancies if there were no immigrants? Do you think fields would lie fallow? Immigrants will simply work worse conditions for lower pay, the only people who profit from that are the owners.
There is actually another fairly well documented contributory factor to youth unemployment. I'm not saying its the only one, but it does affect what you just said above, with regards to immigrants, 'stealing owr jerbs'.
Simply put, nice white english boys often do not wish to soil their hands with work that they consider beneath them. Picking fruit, cleaning toilets, sorting recyclables from refuse, etc, etc. There are many jobs that are long and physically strenous with little potential for advancement and minimum pay.
But the average english 18 year old usually does not want to apply for jobs like these. They'd rather earn two hundred and twenty pounds a month and have their rent paid for them on the dole, than make three hundred and pay their rent themselves doing a dirty or tiring job.
And I'm going to be honest, I don't blame them. I'd rather sit on the dole in a situation like that too, and hope for something better.
There's also the fact that since something like 40% of young adults are graduates when they hit the work market now, there aren't enough graduate jobs for all of them. Having your degree in Philosophy from Roehampton University isn't worth the paper its printed on, but having got it, you feel that you should have something better than a job at Mcdonalds lined up. So you don't apply to the manky jobs.
Meanwhile, Mr townie boy of the same age who got a BTEC in mechanical admin and then took an apprenticeship, is rolling in potential job offers. And he's not so vastly in debt to boot.
Bryllcream, as a Canadian, I'm lacking the understanding of some context here, I'm afraid, but I'm legitimately curious as to what your operational definition of "English" is, in the context of culture. I think I have a vague notion of what you're implying, but I'm not entirely certain, and before engaging with this conversation I'd appreciate being correctly informed as to exactly what you consider "English culture" to be.
The culture of the English people. I can't really explain it, if you came here for a few weeks I could show you the mannerisms, the language, the attitudes of the English people, then perhaps you'd see how it contrasts so starkly with the hundreds of thousands of people who also live in our cities.
Back in the late '90s I spent a few months living in Kingston upon Thames, so while out of date, I think I have some idea of what you're talking about, and it's honestly sounding like a "no true scotsman" issue. But can you give me an example of how an England-born man of pure Norman or Anglo-Saxon descent would differ from an England-born man of Irish descent, or an England-born man of Indian descent, or an England-born man of Jamaican descent?
How do the politicians know what the beliefs of the people who vote for them are, unless they hold focus groups and surveys?
This is an honest question; please let me know what your answer is.
By being from those communities. 30 years ago, most Labour MPs were from a working class background, usually trade unionists. They *were* the people that they were there to represent, there was never any real question of that. Contrast to today where virtually all MPs, of all parties (the Conservatives are just as distant from their base, just look at the socially liberal policies advocated by the Conservative leadership, as opposed to what David Davies is saying), are simply university graduates who've gone into politics professionally, usually by working as researchers or aides in parliament. Those guys don't know jack gak about how the man in the street thinks or feels, all they know is the polls.
So do you mean to say that asking one man in the street is "being informed", but asking 1,000 men in the street is "not knowing jack gak about the man in the street"? I'm not sure that's consistent. Like, what happens if that one man is schizophrenic, but since he's the only person asked, the MPs decided that gangstalking really is something that needs to be addressed?
Do you think factories would simply stand idle and not bother advertising for vacancies if there were no immigrants? Do you think fields would lie fallow? Immigrants will simply work worse conditions for lower pay, the only people who profit from that are the owners.
There is actually another fairly well documented contributory factor to youth unemployment. I'm not saying its the only one, but it does affect what you just said above, with regards to immigrants, 'stealing owr jerbs'.
Simply put, nice white english boys often do not wish to soil their hands with work that they consider beneath them. Picking fruit, cleaning toilets, sorting recyclables from refuse, etc, etc. There are many jobs that are long and physically strenous with little potential for advancement and minimum pay.
But the average english 18 year old usually does not want to apply for jobs like these. They'd rather earn two hundred and twenty pounds a month and have their rent paid for them on the dole, than make three hundred and pay their rent themselves doing a dirty or tiring job.
And I'm going to be honest, I don't blame them. I'd rather sit on the dole in a situation like that too, and hope for something better.
40 hours of minimum wage gets you 40*£6.19 an hour, £247 a week. Unemployment benefit is £55 a week. Which of those figures do you think is higher? It's simply a myth that it doesn't pay to work, and young people really, really want jobs - but many of the jobs that unskilled young people traditionally did are now filled by immigrants, the exception being retail where lack of good English skills is a bar to employment.
40 hours of minimum wage gets you 40*£6.19 an hour, £247 a week. Unemployment benefit is £55 a week. Which of those figures do you think is higher?
Actually, you tend to find that on minimum wage, you earn little more then you do sitting on the dole. I know that as a fact, as I was in that position not so long ago. I'll extrapolate for you.
On minimum wage working your forty hour week, I pull in roughly one thousand pounds a month compared to the doles Two twenty. Compared at that most basic level, working seems like a total no brainer, right?
But then, you deduct national insurance. Then tax. Then your rent (which in London is usually about six hundred minimum). Your commuting costs. Any dental or prescription costs. Then your council tax. And so on.
By the time you've finished all those deductions, you tend to find that you're actually barely better off than being on the dole (usually to the tune of about fifty to a hundred pounds).
If you've got a nice middle class mummy and daddy you're living with to front all the costs, you're fine. But if your parents are in receipt of benefits and you start working, you're classed as a non-dependent, and your family's housing benefit and council tax breaks are slashed quite harshly as a result, so you end up paying almost as much as you would if you were living separately.
Now if its a decent enough job, and has either perks or potential for advancement, most people will happily do it.
But clean toilets for forty hours a week and be fifty quid better off, or sit and play xbox on the dole? It's a no brainer really for most young people.
Wait, what? Housing benfit is paid regardless of employment status. I think being unemployed actually makes you less likely to get it, though I can't be sure.
But I do enjoy watching you explain how £55 and £250 are actually the same
BryllCream wrote: Wait, what? Housing benfit is paid regardless of employment status. I think being unemployed actually makes you less likely to get it, though I can't be sure.
But I do enjoy watching you explain how £55 and £250 are actually the same
Housing benefit is paid relative to your earning capacity and your location. If you earn over a certain amount per month, you are deemed to be capable of paying your own rent, and left to fend for yourself accordingly.
I was in that position for several months less than a year ago, so I'm really quite intrigued as to how I was imagining the difference in my bank balance. Please go into more detail, so I can see where my bank was no doubt siphoning off the money.
reds8n wrote: UKIP councillor for Boston, Lincolnshire...
Well done Boston !
I loved the reaction from the locals. 'I'm not racist but...'.. 'They're taking our jobs...' Stay classy Lincolnshire.
Is it not true that we have a massive youth unemployment in this country though. If Immigration continues with lax controls, does that not make unemployment even worse? Seems common sense no matter how PC it is.
It's not racist at all. Immigration from Eastern Europe is the cause of youth unemployment for this country, I don't see how that can be contested.
Do you think factories would simply stand idle and not bother advertising for vacancies if there were no immigrants? Do you think fields would lie fallow? Immigrants will simply work worse conditions for lower pay, the only people who profit from that are the owners.
At best you can prove correlation. You will find it very difficult if not impossible to prove that eastern Europeans are taking jobs away from young people.
You would need to prove they apply for the same jobs, not just jobs in general, and that the eastern Europeans are somehow more likely to get hired.
Otherwise you are at best left with circumstantial evidence that immigrants take jobs away from citizens.
It's not racist at all. Immigration from Eastern Europe is the cause of youth unemployment for this country, I don't see how that can be contested.
It take it you didn't bother reading my posts earlier in the page, so I will do you the service of restating the facts.
The are countries in Europe with higher immigration and lower youth unemployment, there are also countries in Europe with lower immigration and higher youth unemployment.
Spoiler:
Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn.
Does immigration create greater unemployment or greater inactivity among existing workers? The first systematic study of this issue used data for 1983-2000 to analyse how changes in the share of migrants impact on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of existing workers (Dustmann, Fabbri and Preston 2005). It concluded that immigration had no statistically significant effect on the overall employment outcomes of UK-born workers. The study did, however, find statistically significant effects on specific educational groups of UK-born workers: immigration was found to have adverse effects on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of UK-born with intermediate education (defined as O level and equivalent) and a positive impact on employment outcomes of UK-born workers with advanced education (A-levels or university degrees).
A separate study carried out by researchers at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) analysed the impact of labour immigration of A8 workers on claimant unemployment during May 2004-November 2005 (Lemos and Portes 2008). The study found little evidence of an adverse effect. There is some evidence to suggest that, just like the impact on wages, the effects of immigration on unemployment differ between the short and long run. An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2003 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years) but has no significant impact in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2007).
Two recent studies have provided additional insights on the impact of immigration on employment in the UK using a time period which includes the latest recession. Lucchino, Rosazza-Bondibene and Portes (2012) used National Insurance Number (NINO) registrations data from 2002 to 2011 to explore the impact of immigration on claimant count rates (i.e. a proxy for unemployment) in 379 local authorities in England. The results suggest that there is no impact of immigration on the claimant count rate. This result holds even during periods of low economic growth or recession.
Research by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) studied the impact of migrants on the employment of UK-born people using data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for 1975-2010 (Migration Advisory Committee 2012). The study suggests that, overall, migrants have no impact on UK-born employment. However, the MAC also analysed the specific impacts of EU and non-EU migrants and also distinguished between two sub-periods: 1975-1994 and 1995-2010. It found that non-EU immigration was associated with a reduction in the employment of UK-born workers during 1995-2010. No statistically significant effects were found for EU immigration. The MAC analysis also suggests that the likelihood of a negative impact of immigration on employment of UK-born workers is likely to be greatest during economic downturns.
BryllCream wrote: Wait, what? Housing benfit is paid regardless of employment status. I think being unemployed actually makes you less likely to get it, though I can't be sure.
But I do enjoy watching you explain how £55 and £250 are actually the same
Housing benefit is paid relative to your earning capacity and your location. If you earn over a certain amount per month, you are deemed to be capable of paying your own rent, and left to fend for yourself accordingly.
I was in that position for several months less than a year ago, so I'm really quite intrigued as to how I was imagining the difference in my bank balance. Please go into more detail, so I can see where my bank was no doubt siphoning off the money.
Housing benefit is more or less impossible to get around here so I assumed it was the same throughout the country.
Even if you account for it, you're far better off earning a wage than not - most unemployed young people are not living by themselves and claiming housing benefit, they're living at home.
It's not racist at all. Immigration from Eastern Europe is the cause of youth unemployment for this country, I don't see how that can be contested.
It take it you didn't bother reading my posts earlier in the page, so I will do you the service of restating the facts.
The are countries in Europe with higher immigration and lower youth unemployment, there are also countries in Europe with lower immigration and higher youth unemployment.
Spoiler:
Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn.
Does immigration create greater unemployment or greater inactivity among existing workers? The first systematic study of this issue used data for 1983-2000 to analyse how changes in the share of migrants impact on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of existing workers (Dustmann, Fabbri and Preston 2005). It concluded that immigration had no statistically significant effect on the overall employment outcomes of UK-born workers. The study did, however, find statistically significant effects on specific educational groups of UK-born workers: immigration was found to have adverse effects on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of UK-born with intermediate education (defined as O level and equivalent) and a positive impact on employment outcomes of UK-born workers with advanced education (A-levels or university degrees).
A separate study carried out by researchers at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) analysed the impact of labour immigration of A8 workers on claimant unemployment during May 2004-November 2005 (Lemos and Portes 2008). The study found little evidence of an adverse effect. There is some evidence to suggest that, just like the impact on wages, the effects of immigration on unemployment differ between the short and long run. An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2003 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years) but has no significant impact in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2007).
Two recent studies have provided additional insights on the impact of immigration on employment in the UK using a time period which includes the latest recession. Lucchino, Rosazza-Bondibene and Portes (2012) used National Insurance Number (NINO) registrations data from 2002 to 2011 to explore the impact of immigration on claimant count rates (i.e. a proxy for unemployment) in 379 local authorities in England. The results suggest that there is no impact of immigration on the claimant count rate. This result holds even during periods of low economic growth or recession.
Research by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) studied the impact of migrants on the employment of UK-born people using data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for 1975-2010 (Migration Advisory Committee 2012). The study suggests that, overall, migrants have no impact on UK-born employment. However, the MAC also analysed the specific impacts of EU and non-EU migrants and also distinguished between two sub-periods: 1975-1994 and 1995-2010. It found that non-EU immigration was associated with a reduction in the employment of UK-born workers during 1995-2010. No statistically significant effects were found for EU immigration. The MAC analysis also suggests that the likelihood of a negative impact of immigration on employment of UK-born workers is likely to be greatest during economic downturns.
That's irrelevent. I say again, if immigrants were to randomly up and leave, do you think that factories wouldn't advertise vacancies and have them filled by young English people?
That's irrelevent. I say again, if immigrants were to randomly up and leave, do you think that factories wouldn't advertise vacancies and have them filled by young English people?
Which is not even close to what you said, which was...
Immigration from Eastern Europe is the cause of youth unemployment for this country
Immigration is not the cause of unemployment anymore than the raising of the retirement age is. We could reduce the age of retirement to 40 and that would also create a lot of vacancies.
BryllCream wrote: most unemployed young people are not living by themselves and claiming housing benefit, they're living at home.
Citation needed. Or are you just making things up again?
I'm doing that thing whereby I was unemployed until a few months ago, as were many of my friends. Like I was saying above, you can throw around your stats but I *was* an unemployed young man, and I hung around with other unemployed young men, and I know how they think/feel/act.
Which is not even close to what you said, which was...
Immigration from Eastern Europe is the cause of youth unemployment for this country
Immigration is not the cause of unemployment anymore than the raising of the retirement age is. We could reduce the age of retirement to 40 and that would also create a lot of vacancies.
Lowing the retirement age would indeed lower unemployment, but we don't do it because we need people to pay into their retirement.
You've again avoided what I said - do you think that factory owners would simply not bother to look for new workers if they didn't have access to cheap migrants? Your graph is lovely, but you seem to be implying, via your graph, that vacancies in the economy would not be filled by unemployment, which is utter nonsense. It's irrefutable that immigration is causing unemployment amongst English people.
BryllCream wrote: most unemployed young people are not living by themselves and claiming housing benefit, they're living at home.
Citation needed. Or are you just making things up again?
I'm doing that thing whereby I was unemployed until a few months ago, as were many of my friends. Like I was saying above, you can throw around your stats but I *was* an unemployed young man, and I hung around with other unemployed young men, and I know how they think/feel/act.
There's a name for that, anecdotal. The plural of anecdote is not data. You could know 500,000 people in a similar situation but if the other million and a half are not living at home then what are "most" (your word) doing?
You've again avoided what I said - do you think that factory owners would simply not bother to look for new workers if they didn't have access to cheap migrants? Your graph is lovely, but you seem to be implying, via your graph, that vacancies in the economy would not be filled by unemployment, which is utter nonsense. It's irrefutable that immigration is causing unemployment amongst English people.
Migrants are not cheaper than local workers, we have minimum wage laws.
What graph? I haven't used a graph to show anything. Are you actually reading peoples posts?
I don't think you understand what the words irrefutable, or cause, mean.
There's a name for that, anecdotal. The plural of anecdote is not data. You could know 500,000 people in a similar situation but if the other million and a half are not living at home then what are "most" (your word) doing?
I have explained to you how people feel about issues, and why. The fact that you, and the political ruling class, refuse to listen or address the white working class in the slightest, is the reason UKIP are doing so well.
Anyway I'm done arguing with liberals in this thread, I'm sure you have a pithy "final word" reply lined up.
There's a name for that, anecdotal. The plural of anecdote is not data. You could know 500,000 people in a similar situation but if the other million and a half are not living at home then what are "most" (your word) doing?
I have explained to you how people feel about issues, and why. The fact that you, and the political ruling class, refuse to listen or address the white working class in the slightest, is the reason UKIP are doing so well.
Anyway I'm done arguing with liberals in this thread, I'm sure you have a pithy "final word" reply lined up.
White working class...
Not British working class, not English working class but white working class.
My granddad fought people like you during the war, how full of despair he'd be to realize you've hateful ideology crept into the country of multicultural freedoms he fought for and loved.
There's a name for that, anecdotal. The plural of anecdote is not data. You could know 500,000 people in a similar situation but if the other million and a half are not living at home then what are "most" (your word) doing?
I have explained to you how people feel about issues, and why. The fact that you, and the political ruling class, refuse to listen or address the white working class in the slightest, is the reason UKIP are doing so well.
Anyway I'm done arguing with liberals in this thread, I'm sure you have a pithy "final word" reply lined up.
White working class...
Not British working class, not English working class but white working class.
My granddad fought people like you during the war, how full of despair he'd be to realize you've hateful ideology crept into the country of multicultural freedoms he fought for and loved.
Wait your grandfather fought for the Germans? Now I'm, confused.
To the topic, despite the ganing up, you ignore voters like Bryllcream at your peril. You may not feel their grievances are legitimate and won't address them, but that only turns their views towards anger. And anger leads to the Dark Side.
There's a name for that, anecdotal. The plural of anecdote is not data. You could know 500,000 people in a similar situation but if the other million and a half are not living at home then what are "most" (your word) doing?
I have explained to you how people feel about issues, and why. The fact that you, and the political ruling class, refuse to listen or address the white working class in the slightest, is the reason UKIP are doing so well.
Anyway I'm done arguing with liberals in this thread, I'm sure you have a pithy "final word" reply lined up.
White working class...
Not British working class, not English working class but white working class.
My granddad fought people like you during the war, how full of despair he'd be to realize you've hateful ideology crept into the country of multicultural freedoms he fought for and loved.
Wait your grandfather fought for the Germans? Now I'm, confused.
No frazzled, he fought against people motivated by a racial agenda and notions of superiority over other 'races'.
There's a name for that, anecdotal. The plural of anecdote is not data. You could know 500,000 people in a similar situation but if the other million and a half are not living at home then what are "most" (your word) doing?
I have explained to you how people feel about issues, and why. The fact that you, and the political ruling class, refuse to listen or address the white working class in the slightest, is the reason UKIP are doing so well.
Anyway I'm done arguing with liberals in this thread, I'm sure you have a pithy "final word" reply lined up.
White working class...
Not British working class, not English working class but white working class.
My granddad fought people like you during the war, how full of despair he'd be to realize you've hateful ideology crept into the country of multicultural freedoms he fought for and loved.
I would exalt this post an infinite number of times if I was able to.
There's a name for that, anecdotal. The plural of anecdote is not data. You could know 500,000 people in a similar situation but if the other million and a half are not living at home then what are "most" (your word) doing?
I have explained to you how people feel about issues, and why. The fact that you, and the political ruling class, refuse to listen or address the white working class in the slightest, is the reason UKIP are doing so well.
Anyway I'm done arguing with liberals in this thread, I'm sure you have a pithy "final word" reply lined up.
White working class...
Not British working class, not English working class but white working class.
My granddad fought people like you during the war, how full of despair he'd be to realize you've hateful ideology crept into the country of multicultural freedoms he fought for and loved.
Wait your grandfather fought for the Germans? Now I'm, confused.
No frazzled, he fought against people motivated by a racial agenda and notions of superiority over other 'races'.
So you're calling this Bryllcream bloke a Nazi then? Why? I'm still confused. Thats ok, I just started my second cup of coffee. I'm just happy I have a new phrase. "Cornish tin merchant."
There's a name for that, anecdotal. The plural of anecdote is not data. You could know 500,000 people in a similar situation but if the other million and a half are not living at home then what are "most" (your word) doing?
I have explained to you how people feel about issues, and why. The fact that you, and the political ruling class, refuse to listen or address the white working class in the slightest, is the reason UKIP are doing so well.
Anyway I'm done arguing with liberals in this thread, I'm sure you have a pithy "final word" reply lined up.
No, you have explained how you feel about these issues. The fact that you and others like you are in the minority in every poll and election ever held in this country should tell you exactly how the British people feel.
The fact you can't back up a single thing you say, while those who oppose your view have used all sorts of studies and research to back up their points should tell you exactly what the actual facts are.
The average British soldier was insanely racist. Certainly my grandad was
I would ask you where I mentioned anything about racial superiority but it's pointless - you've already made up your mind, and I salute your resolve in refusing to change it in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, you have research to show that I and my friends/co worksheet do not feel threatened by.immigration? Do share.
I would ask you where I mentioned anything about racial superiority but it's pointless - you've already made up your mind, and I salute your resolve in refusing to change it in the face of evidence to the contrary.
That's funny you are talking about evidence, and yet you have failed to provide any.
BryllCream wrote: The average British soldier was insanely racist. Certainly my grandad was
I would ask you where I mentioned anything about racial superiority but it's pointless - you've already made up your mind, and I salute your resolve in refusing to change it in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, you have research to show that I and my friends/co worksheet do not feel threatened by.immigration? Do share.
Your friends are welcome to either research properly or remain ignorant as you have proven yourself in this thread with your xenophobia.
Neither of my grandfathers are or were racists. Nor were their brothers who served. Perhaps your obnoxious racism is a result of taught bigotry in your family, if so, I am sorry you have kept this malignant ideology, which flies both in the face of logic/science and in the face of most religious teachings of tolerance.
You have made reference, repeatedly, in this thread to the 'ethnic English', something I showed you through my lighthearted initial post was utter bs. The English are an amalgam of multiple tribal migrations and wars, resulting in a mixture of many cultures. You cited directly 'white' people being under threat from immigration of 'foreigners', I have English friends with Asian, African and South American heritage, I am incredibly happy with my friendships with them, I am enriched by them and they work hard and contribute to society. Your bigoted attitude towards them and those who'd move here to join the community and contribute, based upon bizarre notions of 'stealing jobs', is the sort of closeted racist bs that, when not confronted and exposed, leads to the potential for a nation to fall into fascism.
Don't let johnny foreigner take your place, fight!
THEY TOOK OUR THREAD!
But its rightfully ours!
Don't let them join 'our'* forums!
*our [aʊə]
determiner
1. of, belonging to, or associated in some way with us our best vodka our parents are good to us
2. belonging to or associated with all people or people in general our nearest planet is Venus
3. a formal word for my used by editors or other writers, and monarchs
4. Informal (often sarcastic) used instead of your are our feet hurting?
5. Dialect belonging to the family of the speaker it's our Sandra's birthday tomorrow
6. xenophobic nonsense - These are our jobs etc
In which case they were atypical of their times. If popular culture reflects the appetites of its audience, then the '30s and '40s were demonstrably more racist than today, judged by today's standards. Which is what we're doing.
You have made reference, repeatedly, in this thread to the 'ethnic English', something I showed you through my lighthearted initial post was utter bs. The English are an amalgam of multiple tribal migrations and wars, resulting in a mixture of many cultures.
That's no more true of England than of pretty much every country on earth, in fact, in some cases, less so. As far as the British countries are concerned, the English are no more a 'Mongrel Race' than the Scots, Welsh, Irish and yes, the Cornish. There is hard genetic data to back this up. I'm presuming you're using the word 'culture' incorrectly here, by the way, because if you aren't you're even more wrong.
BryllCream wrote: most unemployed young people are not living by themselves and claiming housing benefit, they're living at home.
Citation needed. Or are you just making things up again?
I'm doing that thing whereby I was unemployed until a few months ago, as were many of my friends. Like I was saying above, you can throw around your stats but I *was* an unemployed young man, and I hung around with other unemployed young men, and I know how they think/feel/act.
There's a name for that, anecdotal. The plural of anecdote is not data.
You'll probably learn that anecdotal evidence is a valid form of qualitative data-gathering in your 2nd year.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but just so we are all on the same page, what is the "correct" definition of Culture?
The best and most accurate description is probably 'signifying practices related to discrete groups'. It's certainly not synonymous with ethnicity or race, rather those two terms refer to types of discrete groups that make use of culture in their encoding and decoding of meaning in lived practice.
That's irrelevent. I say again, if immigrants were to randomly up and leave, do you think that factories wouldn't advertise vacancies and have them filled by young English people?
Which is not even close to what you said, which was...
Immigration from Eastern Europe is the cause of youth unemployment for this country
Immigration is not the cause of unemployment anymore than the raising of the retirement age is. We could reduce the age of retirement to 40 and that would also create a lot of vacancies.
That's irrelevent. I say again, if immigrants were to randomly up and leave, do you think that factories wouldn't advertise vacancies and have them filled by young English people?
Which is not even close to what you said, which was...
Immigration from Eastern Europe is the cause of youth unemployment for this country
Immigration is not the cause of unemployment anymore than the raising of the retirement age is. We could reduce the age of retirement to 40 and that would also create a lot of vacancies.
Citation needed.
No worries, it's on the previous page, but i'll quote it again for you.
Spoiler:
Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn.
Does immigration create greater unemployment or greater inactivity among existing workers? The first systematic study of this issue used data for 1983-2000 to analyse how changes in the share of migrants impact on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of existing workers (Dustmann, Fabbri and Preston 2005). It concluded that immigration had no statistically significant effect on the overall employment outcomes of UK-born workers. The study did, however, find statistically significant effects on specific educational groups of UK-born workers: immigration was found to have adverse effects on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of UK-born with intermediate education (defined as O level and equivalent) and a positive impact on employment outcomes of UK-born workers with advanced education (A-levels or university degrees).
A separate study carried out by researchers at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) analysed the impact of labour immigration of A8 workers on claimant unemployment during May 2004-November 2005 (Lemos and Portes 2008). The study found little evidence of an adverse effect. There is some evidence to suggest that, just like the impact on wages, the effects of immigration on unemployment differ between the short and long run. An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2003 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years) but has no significant impact in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2007).
Two recent studies have provided additional insights on the impact of immigration on employment in the UK using a time period which includes the latest recession. Lucchino, Rosazza-Bondibene and Portes (2012) used National Insurance Number (NINO) registrations data from 2002 to 2011 to explore the impact of immigration on claimant count rates (i.e. a proxy for unemployment) in 379 local authorities in England. The results suggest that there is no impact of immigration on the claimant count rate. This result holds even during periods of low economic growth or recession.
Research by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) studied the impact of migrants on the employment of UK-born people using data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for 1975-2010 (Migration Advisory Committee 2012). The study suggests that, overall, migrants have no impact on UK-born employment. However, the MAC also analysed the specific impacts of EU and non-EU migrants and also distinguished between two sub-periods: 1975-1994 and 1995-2010. It found that non-EU immigration was associated with a reduction in the employment of UK-born workers during 1995-2010. No statistically significant effects were found for EU immigration. The MAC analysis also suggests that the likelihood of a negative impact of immigration on employment of UK-born workers is likely to be greatest during economic downturns.
In which case they were atypical of their times. If popular culture reflects the appetites of its audience, then the '30s and '40s were demonstrably more racist than today, judged by today's standards. Which is what we're doing.
You have made reference, repeatedly, in this thread to the 'ethnic English', something I showed you through my lighthearted initial post was utter bs. The English are an amalgam of multiple tribal migrations and wars, resulting in a mixture of many cultures.
That's no more true of England than of pretty much every country on earth, in fact, in some cases, less so. As far as the British countries are concerned, the English are no more a 'Mongrel Race' than the Scots, Welsh, Irish and yes, the Cornish. There is hard genetic data to back this up. I'm presuming you're using the word 'culture' incorrectly here, by the way, because if you aren't you're even more wrong.
I was simply illustrating to he of the 'England for the White English, English jobs for White English' that he was talking from his arsehole. There has been migration to the isles for thousands of years. The culture shifts and evolves. Prejudice against people who are not 'white' English is racism. I have several friends who identify as English and are not white, they are as English as they want to be, their presence has not driven the ravens from the tower. Food, music, language and the color of the grandkids is all changing, I couldn't care less, in fact I welcome it. Diversification and multiculturalism and tolerance are wonderful things, we should only be drawing lines in the sand when we encounter cultures that do not wish to integrate, contribute and mingle, and instead wish to aggressively assimilate and conquer, not mentioning any names. Bigotry against someone else having a better suntan than you is daft, daft and dangerous.
In which case they were atypical of their times. If popular culture reflects the appetites of its audience, then the '30s and '40s were demonstrably more racist than today, judged by today's standards. Which is what we're doing.
You have made reference, repeatedly, in this thread to the 'ethnic English', something I showed you through my lighthearted initial post was utter bs. The English are an amalgam of multiple tribal migrations and wars, resulting in a mixture of many cultures.
That's no more true of England than of pretty much every country on earth, in fact, in some cases, less so. As far as the British countries are concerned, the English are no more a 'Mongrel Race' than the Scots, Welsh, Irish and yes, the Cornish. There is hard genetic data to back this up. I'm presuming you're using the word 'culture' incorrectly here, by the way, because if you aren't you're even more wrong.
I was simply illustrating to he of the 'England for the White English, English jobs for White English' that he was talking from his arsehole. There has been migration to the isles for thousands of years. The culture shifts and evolves. Prejudice against people who are not 'white' English is racism. I have several friends who identify as English and are not white, they are as English as they want to be, their presence has not driven the ravens from the tower. Food, music, language and the color of the grandkids is all changing, I couldn't care less, in fact I welcome it. Diversification and multiculturalism and tolerance are wonderful things, we should only be drawing lines in the sand when we encounter cultures that do not wish to integrate, contribute and mingle, and instead wish to aggressively assimilate and conquer, not mentioning any names. Bigotry against someone else having a better suntan than you is daft, daft and dangerous.
I agree with you, but I think your characterisation of BryllCream as a white supremacist is a little harsh. One doesn't have to be racist to accept a discrete English ethnic diversity - it exists, it's fact. One also doesn't have to be racist to recognise that England is predominantly a majority white nation, both historically and currently. Accepting both of those facts, does it then follow that it is automatically racist to want this state of affairs not to change? No, I don't think so. Some people are just small 'c' conservatives in that they actually quite like their country the way it is and don't want it to change. And, even those people accept immigration, as long as incoming people actually fulfill a shortage area as opposed to just being used as a tool for driving wage bills down, and as long as they are willing to adapt to our way of life, as opposed to the other way around. There is no shortage area so large that it requires 800,000 immigrants to come in and fill positions. No way.
There are a lot of people who think like this in the UK. These people are here, they vote, get used to it. You'll have to, because they resent being told by metropolitan liberal types that they are stupid and ignorant, or that they are closet fascists, and they are starting to make their voices heard with increasing volume. Blair sowed the wind, I predict that in the next decade the liberal establishment will reap the whirlwind. The backlash is coming. Be ready.
Albatross wrote:
That's no more true of England than of pretty much every country on earth, in fact, in some cases, less so.
...I think that was kind of the point, Alb.
EDIT:
Albatross wrote:
One doesn't have to be racist to accept a discrete English ethnic diversity - it exists, it's fact.
One also doesn't have to be racist to recognise that England is predominantly a majority white nation, both historically and currently.
I would say the existence of the English ethnicity is a fact. I would agree that Britain is indeed a majority 'white' nation (presuming we're only using the word 'white' loosely as a very basic observation of phenotype).
I would not say that the English ethnicity is 'white' however. Ethnicity is a social construct. I'm aware that you did not explicitly state that, but the linking of the statements above seemed to imply it.
I would say the existence of the English ethnicity is a fact. I would agree that Britain is indeed a majority 'white' nation (presuming we're only using the word 'white' loosely as a very basic observation of phenotype).
I would not say that the English ethnicity is 'white' however.
Which statement is most accurate, in terms of the way it describes English racial make-up? 'England is a white country' or 'England is a black country'? You've accepted that England is a majority white nation, so is it not accurate to say that the skin-colour most closely associated with English ethnic identity is white? If it's not then what is?
That's not to say that non-white people aren't English, because 'race' (I use the term advisedly) is only one component of ethnic identity. Look at it this way - what racial phenotype do you most closely associate with China?
Ethnicity is a social construct.
So's England. So's banking. So's capital punishment. So are trousers. You might choose to hand-wave away mere social constructs, but it would be small comfort to the poor sod on death row, and it certainly won't stand up in court when you get nicked for walking down the street with no trousers on.
Albatross wrote:
Which statement is most accurate, in terms of the way it describes English racial make-up? 'England is a white country' or 'England is a black country'? You've accepted that England is a majority white nation, so is it not accurate to say that the skin-colour most closely associated with English ethnic identity is white? If it's not then what is?
That's not to say that non-white people aren't English, because 'race' (I use the term advisedly) is only one component of ethnic identity. Look at it this way - what racial phenotype do you most closely associate with China?
Unfortunately, race is also a social construct.
Sounds crazy I know. I actually spent a while digging into it though, and you find that if you go to Brazil, you are considered 'white' or 'black depending entirely on how you dress and behave.
Essentially, it boils down to the precise definitions of race and ethnicity (or their lack thereof). An ethnicity is generally considered by non-academics to be a cultural grouping, whilst 'race' is a biologically based identity.
Unfortunately, both of these definitions are not only incorrect, they're downright misleading. Ethnic groups regularly come together and fall apart the world over in remarkably short periods of time, and are often based upon deliberately modified and perverted histories. Indeed, all that is actually required to be a member of an ethnic grouping is a self-proclamation of that fact. Otherwise you begin to run into the no true scotsman approach, where Orthodox Jews consider other Jews to not be Jewish, black Zimbabweans consider white born ones to be foreigners, etc.
So whilst the 'english' might be an ethnicity, being white is not necessarily part and parcel of being a member of the english ethnicity.
Race alternatively, is again a social construct. There's very little biological difference between people once you get past the obvious phenotype differences. It's very easy to compare a black person and a white person, but when it comes to a person of combined spanish and native american heritage? Not so easy. They become effectively 'raceless'.
No attempt to codify the 'races' of man has ever succeeded, primarily because there are no such things along biological grounds. And there have been more than a few attempts. The problem is that race is inherently tied to concepts of either phenotype or nationality or geography usually, and those shift and change all the time.
So yes. I can be black and part of the English ethnicity quite easily, as ethnicity is nothing more than a self-proclaimed social construct, and race is a mishmash of various different social concepts, none of which quite hold together.
You should look into it a bit more Alb, the wikipedia page on 'race' is filled with a broad and lengthy outline of the issue. It's actually quite fascinating once you realise just how much one's perceptions of the world can be tainted by social conditioning.
BryllCream wrote: Isn't the issue of race/ethnicity somewhat off-topic? Unless one of you thinks that UKIP seek to exploit it, which I don't think you are.
I don't know. I think somebody raised the issue of the 'white working class' thus bringing it into the discussion, but I can't for the life of me remember who.
BryllCream wrote: I don't think anyone is surprised at the right-wing rhetoric that is going to be coming from the tories from now until the next election.
Heh... sounds awfully close to whats happening here in the States regarding the American Conservatives vs Republican Establishments.
For instance... consider the last two US Presidential Elections... who where the Republican Candidates?
1) John McCain... often accused of a RINO (republican in name only), thus earning him that "Maverick" nickname.
2) Mitt Romney... a Northeastern wealthy Republican, ex-Governor of Massachusetts... one of the most liberal states in the union.
See a pattern?
And Chris Christie (Governor of New Jersey) is touted as the leading candidate for the next election...
But in the UK it is caused by the rise of the right-wing UKIP, who're advocating a very right wing social agenda. The Conservatives, in particular David Cameron, are socially very liberal, which annoys many of the grass roots.
Any political scientist will tell you that elections are won by taking the centre, that's why Blair won by such a massive landslide in 97, because he appealed to moderate Tories. I can't see this ending well for either the Republicans or the Conservatives if they continue down the path of lurching toward the right.
BryllCream wrote: Our economy has trashed heavier than this in the past, with a far greater impact, yet to electoral boost to a right-wing party. What gives?
Or is it a coincidence that many English people feel marginilised by immigration, at the same time as an anti-immigration party is getting votes?
Actually, the triple dip recession is not just unheard of Britain, it's completely unheard of in the history of world economics. Seriously, the UK economic position is record setting horrible. Still nowhere near as bad as Spain and the other countries posting unemployment rates of more than 20%, but still incredibly bad.
And you absolutely, cannot for one second act like there is no relationship between poor economic circumstances and an increase in opposition to immigration. That's just not a thing that's possible. That you get a subsequent rise in the profile of anti-immigration parties as a result is something of a no-brainer.
Oh, and the big thing to actually understand about all this is that immigration in to Britain has not in any way caused or worsened the recession. You staked a lot on your financial sector, and then there was the GFC. And then in the aftermath you instituted austerity in response. That produces severe recession.
That the above is complex and not the kind of thing many people like to think about doesn't make it any less true, but it does leave many people looking for simpler answers that do fit the things they like to think about. And for many that means complaining about immigration.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BryllCream wrote: Which fails to take into account the huge drop in prices of finished goods due to outsourcing in the third world. We're as rich now as we were in 2004, do you remember UKIP doing particularly well in 2004?
You don't just look at the overall number and declare we're richer than we were at some other time.
GDP grows over time because of two things - population growth and productivity growth. So in, let's say 1991 because I have the figures on hand, you had 48 million people, and they were producing 224 billion worth of stuff, or about 4,500 each*. Come to 2004, and you have 50 million people, and they're making 339 billion worth of stuff. Per person you're talking more than 6,700 each. Productivity in that time grew almost 50% - each person on average was capable of producing 50% more stuff of value than he was 13 years before.
And that's about the basic pattern we've seen since 1900 - every year each manhour produces about 3% more in value than it did the year before.
And so when you wipe about 6% from GDP as we saw in Britain from 2008 to 2009, you see, plainly and simply, less people needed in employment. Then you get, and you might have heard of this, very high unemployment in Britain.
And then in the three years since then you've seen GDP almost stagnant - no increase in productivity, and no increase in pay.
And if you can't see why those two things - high unemployment and static incomes, might cause bitterness among voters... well then you just aren't fething trying.
*This is per capita so it's a bit sloppy on my part as we should be taking in to account participation rate, but I don't have those figures on hand, they're almost certainly consistent outside of business cycle impacts, and they don't change the overall basics of the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote: Is it not true that we have a massive youth unemployment in this country though. If Immigration continues with lax controls, does that not make unemployment even worse? Seems common sense no matter how PC it is.
Except immigration rarely competes for the same jobs as locals.
Here's a simple, and not very nice but very, very true fact about life in a wealthy, developed country with a decent, free education available to all - kids who are willing to work hard get skills (they get a trade through a vocational school or apprenticeship, or a profession through university). The folk who are left, well, there's not many of them who are really hard working, good employees. Not nice, but really, really true. Then you look at the work the immigrants do, a small minority are picked up because they have really specific, technical professions, but the vast majority are unskilled or at best semi-skilled workers who do hard, demanding manual labour - picking turnips, grunt work on construction sites, that kind of stuff.
The simple, but not nice reality is that the locals who were too lazy to take advantage of the educational opportunities given to them for free are too lazy to be useful in those very demanding, poor paying jobs.
I mean, you want to talk about PC and not PC? Just take a look at how everyone talks about the basic issue that the people losing out to immigrants... well most of them are just not the people anyone wants to employ.
That's the big problem with PC. We've all got our sacred cows, things we don't like to talk about even though they're true. Complaining about someone else's PC just means you don't like their sacred cows, and want to pretend you don't have any of your own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote: Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that our economy is fethed, or that youth employment has effectively been replaced with free labour from the Work Programme. Bear in mind the opposite is also true, there are countries such as Italy which have lower immigration and higher youth unemployment.
Nah, none of this is due to anything structural (because nothing meaningful changed in the structure of UK economy between 2008 and today).
What did change was the financial crisis, and the poor recovery across Europe driven by the stupidity of austerity (and in Britain, where you still have you own currency, austerity is perhaps even stupider than anywhere else).
You have unemployment because aggregate demand has dropped massively. It hasn't recovered because the highly leveraged private sector is still forgoing consumption and production in order to deleverage (which, per the tragedy of the commons, is really hard to do when everyone is trying to do it at once). Government has responded to this not by spending more to make up demand, but by pretending its own leveraging is somehow part of the problem, and trying to spend less.
The result is gakky recovery and therefore high unemployment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: To be fair to the woman on the even of WWI, she may have been very old and simply remembered it more as being the Prussian-dominated German Confederation, and hence: "so-called Germans". I suppose that would be akin to saying "It'll always be Burma to me". On the other hand, I've got absolutely no explanation for what a "pseudo-social scientist" is.
That actually makes a lot of sense. I read that years ago, recounted it dozens of times, and at no point did I, or anyone I mentioned it to, ever think that in the wake of the unification of Germany 'so called' actually made a fair bit of sense. Much credit to you.
But yeah, I've got no idea who these pseudo-social scientists are, or how they came in to being.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BryllCream wrote: 40 hours of minimum wage gets you 40*£6.19 an hour, £247 a week. Unemployment benefit is £55 a week. Which of those figures do you think is higher? It's simply a myth that it doesn't pay to work, and young people really, really want jobs - but many of the jobs that unskilled young people traditionally did are now filled by immigrants, the exception being retail where lack of good English skills is a bar to employment.
You ever met the people who were given free acces to 12 years of schooling, and access to university and vocational schools, and came away with no job skills at all? While it doesn't explain all of them, the overwhelming majority are, frankly, pretty damn lazy.
And a lot of unskilled work is unpleasant, and almost all of it is unpleasant. I mean, if you aren't motivated enough to go to a technical college and get a trade, you sure as hell aren't motivated enough to make a decent fist of laying asphalt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BryllCream wrote: I'm doing that thing whereby I was unemployed until a few months ago, as were many of my friends. Like I was saying above, you can throw around your stats but I *was* an unemployed young man, and I hung around with other unemployed young men, and I know how they think/feel/act.
And are you entirely unskilled, and applying for jobs at minimum wage, as a manual labourer in farms/construction etc?
Because if not, then you weren't competing against immigrant labour.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Heh... sounds awfully close to whats happening here in the States regarding the American Conservatives vs Republican Establishments.
For instance... consider the last two US Presidential Elections... who where the Republican Candidates?
1) John McCain... often accused of a RINO (republican in name only), thus earning him that "Maverick" nickname.
2) Mitt Romney... a Northeastern wealthy Republican, ex-Governor of Massachusetts... one of the most liberal states in the union.
See a pattern?
And Chris Christie (Governor of New Jersey) is touted as the leading candidate for the next election...
No, he isn't. Christie couldn't even get an invite to CPAC. I mean, forget not being asked to speak there, they wouldn't even let him in the door. Far from being a leading candidate, Christie has been completely shut out.
Anyhow, McCain got the gig in 2008 because in the wake of Bush presidency he was about the only guy around who's brandname was McCain first and Republican second, a vital element when the Republican brand was a toxic as it was in 2008. And Romney got the gig in 2012 because being broadly disliked, the rest of the field was downright incompetent/insane.
The reason both elections were lost is because the very strange place 'American Conservatives' have dragged themselves is basically unelectable across the majority of the population. It's something the party as a whole has woken up to, hence their efforts to change direction on immigration and other issues.
Albatross wrote: Why do people keep saying that the UK is in a triple-dip recession? We aren't.
Because 'in posting a 0.3% rise in GDP the UK narrowly avoided recording a third period of recession and thereby achieving the world's first triple dip recession but is still seen as reasonably likely to record a future recession' takes a hell of a lot longer to type out and read, and so basically 'triple dip recession' is close enough for government work.
England used to be a country that was specifically one religion -- C of E. It was actually illegal not to go to the C of E church on Sundays and you would be fined. Before that it was exclusively Roman Catholic. After C of E, non-conformist religions came to be accepted, then Judaism, and Roman Catholicism. We are now in the process of accepting Islam into what actually has become largely a secular culture.
With such huge changes of religious movements, national identity, culture and ethnicity are clearly malleable concepts.
Actually, the triple dip recession is not just unheard of Britain, it's completely unheard of in the history of world economics. Seriously, the UK economic position is record setting horrible. Still nowhere near as bad as Spain and the other countries posting unemployment rates of more than 20%, but still incredibly bad.
And you absolutely, cannot for one second act like there is no relationship between poor economic circumstances and an increase in opposition to immigration. That's just not a thing that's possible. That you get a subsequent rise in the profile of anti-immigration parties as a result is something of a no-brainer.
Oh, and the big thing to actually understand about all this is that immigration in to Britain has not in any way caused or worsened the recession. You staked a lot on your financial sector, and then there was the GFC. And then in the aftermath you instituted austerity in response. That produces severe recession.
That the above is complex and not the kind of thing many people like to think about doesn't make it any less true, but it does leave many people looking for simpler answers that do fit the things they like to think about. And for many that means complaining about immigration.
Nothing you've said there addresses the one crucial fact - immigration amongst young English people is far higher, because of immigration. I never said that immigration caused the crash, I don't think anyone did.
You don't just look at the overall number and declare we're richer than we were at some other time.
GDP grows over time because of two things - population growth and productivity growth. So in, let's say 1991 because I have the figures on hand, you had 48 million people, and they were producing 224 billion worth of stuff, or about 4,500 each*. Come to 2004, and you have 50 million people, and they're making 339 billion worth of stuff. Per person you're talking more than 6,700 each. Productivity in that time grew almost 50% - each person on average was capable of producing 50% more stuff of value than he was 13 years before.
And that's about the basic pattern we've seen since 1900 - every year each manhour produces about 3% more in value than it did the year before.
And so when you wipe about 6% from GDP as we saw in Britain from 2008 to 2009, you see, plainly and simply, less people needed in employment. Then you get, and you might have heard of this, very high unemployment in Britain.
And then in the three years since then you've seen GDP almost stagnant - no increase in productivity, and no increase in pay.
And if you can't see why those two things - high unemployment and static incomes, might cause bitterness among voters... well then you just aren't fething trying.
I don't see why you saying all of that means that there's been a decrease in living standards large enough to cause 25% of the electorate to turn to another party. Support for fascism has increased in times past when people's living standards were actually piss poor - back in the days of outdoor toilets and before unemployment benefit - but we are not in those times now.
Also unemployment was already high before the recession - largely because of immigration- even at the peak of the recession it was still lower than the 92/93 recession (which saw no increase in support for a fourth party), and pay increases for the majority of the working poor have definitely not kept up with the increase in productivity.
Except immigration rarely competes for the same jobs as locals.
Oh yes they do. You need to get out more into the real world mate.
You ever met the people who were given free acces to 12 years of schooling, and access to university and vocational schools, and came away with no job skills at all? While it doesn't explain all of them, the overwhelming majority are, frankly, pretty damn lazy.
And a lot of unskilled work is unpleasant, and almost all of it is unpleasant. I mean, if you aren't motivated enough to go to a technical college and get a trade, you sure as hell aren't motivated enough to make a decent fist of laying asphalt.
Assuming that a)technical colleges teach you useful things and b)anyone who doesn't go is unmotivated. A majority of the English people at the factory have qualifications from a technical college, as do I. Still means you're not good for anything other than minimum wage.
And are you entirely unskilled, and applying for jobs at minimum wage, as a manual labourer in farms/construction etc?
Because if not, then you weren't competing against immigrant labour.
Yes, I was applying for jobs in factories, which are mainly worked in by immigrants. Thankfully I managed to get a job in a factory - via a connection the workforce is about 70% foreign, with the proportion in unskilled work probably about 95%.
BryllCream wrote: immigration amongst young English people is far higher, because of immigration.
I assume you mean unemployment amongst young people is higher because of immigration. But it's not because of immigration, as has been explained to you numerous times.
the 92/93 recession (which saw no increase in support for a fourth party)
Again, as was shown on the previous page, the early 90s saw the rise of the BNP, with them gaining their first local seat in 1993.
BryllCream wrote: immigration amongst young English people is far higher, because of immigration.
I assume you mean unemployment amongst young people is higher because of immigration. But it's not because of immigration, as has been explained to you numerous times.
Logically speaking then, you're saying that British employers would rather shut down their factories than offer work to young English people?
Again, as was shown on the previous page, the early 90s saw the rise of the BNP, with them gaining their first local seat in 1993.
I don't remember them becoming the third largest party in the UK and double the poll rating of the Lib Dems.
BryllCream wrote: immigration amongst young English people is far higher, because of immigration.
I assume you mean unemployment amongst young people is higher because of immigration. But it's not because of immigration, as has been explained to you numerous times.
Logically speaking then, you're saying that British employers would rather shut down their factories than offer work to young English people?
That's not logic, that's a strawman.
Again, as was shown on the previous page, the early 90s saw the rise of the BNP, with them gaining their first local seat in 1993.
I don't remember them becoming the third largest party in the UK and double the poll rating of the Lib Dems.
Who said they did? You said that we didn't see" an increase of support for a forth party", when we did.
No no no. If you're claiming that immigration does *not* cause unemployment amongst young English people, then the logical outcome of that is that if those immigrants were not there, then factory owners would not advertise vacancies to English people and simply shut down.
Who said they did? You said that we didn't see" an increase of support for a forth party", when we did.
Did the BNP get 24% of the vote in a by-election? Did they get hundreds of counsellers throughout the country? Of course they didn't. You're trying to downplay UKIP's success, I'm beginning to think you may be posting from somewhere on Downing Street
Bryllcream has a point. If those immigrants are employed (and immigrants generally are harder working as they are the self selected achievers looking for a new life) then those are jobs that native could have had.
Now this is balanced in the longer term with new small businesses etc. but that doesn't mean gak to the guys who can't get a job. But there is a solution. Vote for Frazzled and the Wiener Dog Party. We'll make the trains run on time.
No no no. If you're claiming that immigration does *not* cause unemployment amongst young English people, then the logical outcome of that is that if those immigrants were not there, then factory owners would not advertise vacancies to English people and simply shut down.
Again, that is not logic, are you suggesting that the vacancies are not currently available to the local population?
Who said they did? You said that we didn't see" an increase of support for a forth party", when we did.
Did the BNP get 24% of the vote in a by-election? Did they get hundreds of counsellers throughout the country? Of course they didn't. You're trying to downplay UKIP's success, I'm beginning to think you may be posting from somewhere on Downing Street
Oh, so when you said "an increase in support for a forth party" what you actually meant was gaining 6.25% of the electorate voting for them (25% of votes in 25% turnout). The result is effectively the same as the BNP really, some seats in a mid term byelection yet nowhere near gaining a seat in the Commons. As it stands George Galloway is far more successful than UKIP having started a party later than them and gaining 2 seats in the Commons compared to UKIP's zero representation in Westminster. UKIP are getting a lot of press attention at the moment, but are a very long way off gaining any sort of political power.
Albatross wrote: Why do people keep saying that the UK is in a triple-dip recession? We aren't.
Because 'in posting a 0.3% rise in GDP the UK narrowly avoided recording a third period of recession and thereby achieving the world's first triple dip recession but is still seen as reasonably likely to record a future recession' takes a hell of a lot longer to type out and read, and so basically 'triple dip recession' is close enough for government work.
No it isn't, because the words you used have an actual meaning, one which doesn't reflect reality. Whether it was narrowly avoided or not, the UK is not in a triple-dip recession. You basically lied because smugness is more important to you than accuracy.
Albatross wrote: Why do people keep saying that the UK is in a triple-dip recession? We aren't.
Because 'in posting a 0.3% rise in GDP the UK narrowly avoided recording a third period of recession and thereby achieving the world's first triple dip recession but is still seen as reasonably likely to record a future recession' takes a hell of a lot longer to type out and read, and so basically 'triple dip recession' is close enough for government work.
No it isn't, because the words you used have an actual meaning, one which doesn't reflect reality. Whether it was narrowly avoided or not, the UK is not in a triple-dip recession. You basically lied because smugness is more important to you than accuracy.
I don't think sebster is arguing that the UK is a triple-dip recession considering this is what he wrote earlier "Actually, the triple dip recession is not just unheard of Britain, it's completely unheard of in the history of world economics".
dæl wrote:
Again, that is not logic, are you suggesting that the vacancies are not currently available to the local population?
Broadly, no. When was the last time you tried to get a job in a factory out of interest?
Oh, so when you said "an increase in support for a forth party" what you actually meant was gaining 6.25% of the electorate voting for them (25% of votes in 25% turnout). The result is effectively the same as the BNP really, some seats in a mid term byelection yet nowhere near gaining a seat in the Commons. As it stands George Galloway is far more successful than UKIP having started a party later than them and gaining 2 seats in the Commons compared to UKIP's zero representation in Westminster. UKIP are getting a lot of press attention at the moment, but are a very long way off gaining any sort of political power.
I don't remember the BNP getting 150 counsillers, though I could be wrong. And they aren't really getting enough representation in the media, especially compared to the Lib Dems whom it's generally agreed are electorally dead come the next election.
Cheesecat wrote:
I don't think sebster is arguing that the UK is a triple-dip recession considering this is what he wrote earlier "Actually, the triple dip recession is not just unheard of Britain, it's completely unheard of in the history of world economics".
Whether an economy is "triple dip" or not is irrelevent unless you're a newspaper journelist. If an economy sinks by 20% one year, that's one thing. If it grows by 0.1%, shrinks by 0.1%, then grows by 0.1% etc etc, that's what's happened in Britain. Don't let the phrase "triple dip" mean anything, our economy is flat-lining, that's what's important.
dæl wrote:
Again, that is not logic, are you suggesting that the vacancies are not currently available to the local population?
Broadly, no. When was the last time you tried to get a job in a factory out of interest?
Some years ago, probably about 5. But that's irrelevant, here's 750 factory jobs, and guess what, anyone can apply for them. You do realise you need very good reasons to exclude certain groups from employment under equality law? For example not allowing under 18s to serve alcohol or excluding men from working at a woman's refuge. Once again, you are talking about things which have no basis in reality.
I don't remember the BNP getting 150 counsillers, though I could be wrong. And they aren't really getting enough representation in the media, especially compared to the Lib Dems whom it's generally agreed are electorally dead come the next election.
You honestly think that UKIP are not getting enough media attention? They are easily the most talked about party in the media for the last couple of months.
The Lib Dems will still be the third largest party in the commons come 2015 by quite some distance, and have a real history going back to the Whigs where they were one of the two main parties, which makes them somewhat more important than any single issue party who, if lucky, might gain a single seat at the next election.
Some years ago, probably about 5. But that's irrelevant, here's 750 factory jobs, and guess what, anyone can apply for them. You do realise you need very good reasons to exclude certain groups from employment under equality law? For example not allowing under 18s to serve alcohol or excluding men from working at a woman's refuge. Once again, you are talking about things which have no basis in reality.
So the fact that a vast majority of these jobs - in fact, all jobs in total - go exclusively to immigrants, because of friends telling friends and family members spreading the word, won't put you off?
And did you even look at the vacancies? Most of them are the skilled rolls that English people already take. In fact, I can only find one operative position
In any factory, most of the "grunt" jobs will be agency, who don't advertise. Certainly not on sights like that.
You honestly think that UKIP are not getting enough media attention? They are easily the most talked about party in the media for the last couple of months.
The Lib Dems will still be the third largest party in the commons come 2015 by quite some distance, and have a real history going back to the Whigs where they were one of the two main parties, which makes them somewhat more important than any single issue party who, if lucky, might gain a single seat at the next election.
I will put £10 right now that UKIP will get a higher popular vote than the Lib Dems. Give it another five years and they may well beat the tories into second place.
BryllCream wrote: So the fact that a vast majority of these jobs - in fact, all jobs in total - go exclusively to immigrants, because of friends telling friends and family members spreading the word, won't put you off?
Not at all, but then I'm not a racist.
Did you actually just claim that all jobs in total go exclusively to immigrants?
And did you even look at the vacancies? Most of them are the skilled rolls that English people already take. In fact, I can only find one operative position
There are a number of minimum wage, or close to, jobs on the first page alone.
In any factory, most of the "grunt" jobs will be agency, who don't advertise. Certainly not on sights like that.
That site is an agency...
I will put £10 right now that UKIP will get a higher popular vote than the Lib Dems. Give it another five years and they may well beat the tories into second place.
The popular vote doesn't mean a thing, we have a first past the post system, something we had a referendum on not too long ago. How did you vote on that, if you don't mind me asking?
dæl wrote: Not at all, but then I'm not a racist.
Did you actually just claim that all jobs in total go exclusively to immigrants?
They don't, they go to the people who ring up the agency. Nearly all of those are immigrants. English people don't ring up because they don't have the agency within their social circle, those sorts of jobs are not "done" by young white people.
There are a number of minimum wage, or close to, jobs on the first page alone.
...there are two cleaning vacancies. The ratio of grunts to technical/managers is about 20 to 1 in a factory, on that website it's about 5 to 1 in the other direction. Or do you think factories survive on managers and technicians? Trust me mate the guys down on the line will be 70-80% immigrants.
The popular vote doesn't mean a thing, we have a first past the post system, something we had a referendum on not too long ago. How did you vote on that, if you don't mind me asking?
The popular vote is very important. How do you think it will look to UKIP voters if they get a good chunk of the vote, but only a handful of MPs? If they get twice as many votes as the lib dems, but onyl a quarter of the seats? I can't imagine that going down very well.
And I voted against AV, as I was still reeling in betrayal from having voted for the Lib Dems, only for it to turn out that they're tories in yellow rosettes.
dæl wrote: Not at all, but then I'm not a racist.
Did you actually just claim that all jobs in total go exclusively to immigrants?
They don't, they go to the people who ring up the agency. Nearly all of those are immigrants. English people don't ring up because they don't have the agency within their social circle, those sorts of jobs are not "done" by young white people.
See now we are getting somewhere, so the jobs are available for locals, but they aren't applying for them. Seems to me that it's not immigration that's the problem, but motivation.
There are a number of minimum wage, or close to, jobs on the first page alone.
...there are two cleaning vacancies. The ratio of grunts to technical/managers is about 20 to 1 in a factory, on that website it's about 5 to 1 in the other direction. Or do you think factories survive on managers and technicians? Trust me mate the guys down on the line will be 70-80% immigrants.
Tbf I did just write factory jobs into google and go with one of the top results, a concerted effort will reveal far more vacancies. But as you alluded to, young people don't put in the effort as these jobs are seen as beneath them.
The popular vote doesn't mean a thing, we have a first past the post system, something we had a referendum on not too long ago. How did you vote on that, if you don't mind me asking?
The popular vote is very important. How do you think it will look to UKIP voters if they get a good chunk of the vote, but only a handful of MPs? If they get twice as many votes as the lib dems, but onyl a quarter of the seats? I can't imagine that going down very well.
And I voted against AV, as I was still reeling in betrayal from having voted for the Lib Dems, only for it to turn out that they're tories in yellow rosettes.
We have the first past the post, you were offered something different and declined it. You don't then get to complain when the electoral system works as it always has. How it will look if UKIP get more of the popular vote than the Lib Dems but less seats? It will look like the system is working as intended. There's not going to be a revolution or any other nonsense like that, we once had a party win the popular vote but lose the election.
See now we are getting somewhere, so the jobs are available for locals, but they aren't applying for them. Seems to me that it's not immigration that's the problem, but motivation.
No. Until my friend mentioned it to me, I wasn't even aware that there were such jobs available, or that I could apply for them. The average young english person probably isn't aware that they can pick up a phone and get work with an agency.
Tbf I did just write factory jobs into google and go with one of the top results, a concerted effort will reveal far more vacancies. But as you alluded to, young people don't put in the effort as these jobs are seen as beneath them.
Or because they're filled by foreigners? If you advertised in a jobcentre for factory operatives, you'd probably get around a hundred applications for every opening, I know that's roughly the amount we get at work.
We have the first past the post, you were offered something different and declined it. You don't then get to complain when the electoral system works as it always has. How it will look if UKIP get more of the popular vote than the Lib Dems but less seats? It will look like the system is working as intended. There's not going to be a revolution or any other nonsense like that, we once had a party win the popular vote but lose the election.
Again, you're assuming that because something is technically correct, that this is somehow important. That millions of people aren't going to get pissed off or angry because their voice isn't being listened to, simply because that's how the system works. Please open your eyes to these things called emotions. They are far more important than logic or evidence in deciding the fate of mankind.
BryllCream wrote: No. Until my friend mentioned it to me, I wasn't even aware that there were such jobs available, or that I could apply for them. The average young english person probably isn't aware that they can pick up a phone and get work with an agency.
Because why should a factory or agency bother advertising for vacancies when they'll get 50 phone calls a day from eager young Poles, Pakistanis and Nigerians?
Because they have 50 applicants who are willing to work, I'm pretty sure factory owners don't care who works there as long as they are productive and don't break the rules
BryllCream wrote: Because why should a factory or agency bother advertising for vacancies when they'll get 50 phone calls a day from eager young Poles, Pakistanis and Nigerians?
Ah, so your anger isn't at immigrants, it's at people who are more proactive at going and getting a job than you?
BryllCream wrote: The average young english person probably isn't aware that they can pick up a phone and get work with an agency.
If that is actually the case then I hold little hope for this country. For well over a decade the majority of semi-skilled and unskilled work has been sourced through recruitment agencies. People are asked to sign on with recruitment agencies when they sign onto jobseekers so it's highly unlikely that people aren't aware of the existence of agencies.
Again, you're assuming that because something is technically correct, that this is somehow important. That millions of people aren't going to get pissed off or angry because their voice isn't being listened to, simply because that's how the system works. Please open your eyes to these things called emotions. They are far more important than logic or evidence in deciding the fate of mankind.
People were given the opportunity to change the system. The vast majority of UKIP supporters will have, I am guessing, voted no to AV. They don't then get to complain that the electoral system is unfair when it no longer suits them.
Emotions are not more important than logic or evidence for deciding the fate of mankind, quite the opposite. Progress depends upon acting in the most effective manner toward your goals, sometimes the most effective path is not the one that common sense dictates, for example, if you wish to reduce drug related crime the best thing you could do would be to legalise drugs. This seems counter-intuitive, but it is effective. I thought this whole logic/emotion argument was resolved during the Enlightenment, and yet here we are in the 21st Century with someone arguing that we should make decisions based on emotion rather than evidence.
BryllCream wrote: Nothing you've said there addresses the one crucial fact - immigration amongst young English people is far higher, because of immigration. I never said that immigration caused the crash, I don't think anyone did.
Except you're simply wrong in your assertion - unemployment among the youth isn't high because of immigration. You've had high levels of immigration for a long time now, throughout which unemployment in general and among the youth has remained at or below historic standards.
Now, in the wake of financial disaster you've got high unemployment. Concluding it is due to immigration is just wrong.
I mean, here's the UK's youth unemployment rate for you;
See that marked uptick in 2008, the point where the rate shifted outside of normal historic expectations... that wasn't when immigration suddenly began. It's when the GFC happened. Do you get it now?
I don't see why you saying all of that means that there's been a decrease in living standards large enough to cause 25% of the electorate to turn to another party. Support for fascism has increased in times past when people's living standards were actually piss poor - back in the days of outdoor toilets and before unemployment benefit - but we are not in those times now.
But it isn't the absolute nature of living standards. If it was the absolute nature of living standards that mattered, then fascism wouldn't have just risen in the 1930s, but would have utterly dominated politics in the 19th century, when living conditions were much, much worse. And they'd dominate the discourse of nations in Africa and Asia where living standards are much lower. But of course, that doesn't describe the world at all.
So instead we look at how living standards compare to recent standards, and to people's expectations for how they ought to be able to live. It becomes clear that it is when living standards are stagnant or in decline that people turn to populist politics like the UKIP.
Also unemployment was already high before the recession - largely because of immigration- even at the peak of the recession it was still lower than the 92/93 recession (which saw no increase in support for a fourth party), and pay increases for the majority of the working poor have definitely not kept up with the increase in productivity.
Unemployment before the election wasn't high. That's just completely fething wrong. The market downturn began in late 2007, and the UK entered 2008 with unemployment below 5.5%.
And you've made some kind of crazypants assumption that the only possible response to poor economic conditions is a turn to populist parties like the UKIP. In the recession of the early 90s you saw considerable rioting (iirc didn't someone die?) - another response to the social pressures of poor economic conditions.
Looks to me like an upward trend in youth unemployment starting around half way through Blair's second term in office. Guess which country acceded to full EU membership in 2004...
But no, you're right - immigration has nothing to do with it.
Albatross wrote: Looks to me like an upward trend in youth unemployment starting around half way through Blair's second term in office. Guess which country acceded to full EU membership in 2004...
Are you serious? Honestly claiming the ~2% rise in youth unemployment from mid-2003 to mid 2008 is one and the same with ~6% increase from mid 2008 to mid-2009.
2% rise over five years. 6% rise over one year. Totally the same thing.
BryllCream wrote: Because why should a factory or agency bother advertising for vacancies when they'll get 50 phone calls a day from eager young Poles, Pakistanis and Nigerians?
Really? That is your sound thought on the issue of youth unemployment? that immigrants may take a pro active approach to seeking employment? Any unemployed person should be taking the same steps towards self respect.
BryllCream wrote: Because why should a factory or agency bother advertising for vacancies when they'll get 50 phone calls a day from eager young Poles, Pakistanis and Nigerians?
Ah, so your anger isn't at immigrants, it's at people who are more proactive at going and getting a job than you?
I'm not angry at anyone mate and having a different social circle hardly counts as pro-active.
dæl wrote:
If that is actually the case then I hold little hope for this country. For well over a decade the majority of semi-skilled and unskilled work has been sourced through recruitment agencies. People are asked to sign on with recruitment agencies when they sign onto jobseekers so it's highly unlikely that people aren't aware of the existence of agencies.
I wasn't asked to sign on with an agency. Even if I was I wouldn't have gotten work with them due to lack of experience - I had to use an actual contact to get in on work.
Now, guess who's cheap, and experienced at working in factories/warehouses? Begins with P and rhymes with voles
People were given the opportunity to change the system. The vast majority of UKIP supporters will have, I am guessing, voted no to AV. They don't then get to complain that the electoral system is unfair when it no longer suits them.
I'm not getting sidelined into a debate about AV.
Emotions are not more important than logic or evidence for deciding the fate of mankind, quite the opposite. Progress depends upon acting in the most effective manner toward your goals, sometimes the most effective path is not the one that common sense dictates, for example, if you wish to reduce drug related crime the best thing you could do would be to legalise drugs. This seems counter-intuitive, but it is effective. I thought this whole logic/emotion argument was resolved during the Enlightenment, and yet here we are in the 21st Century with someone arguing that we should make decisions based on emotion rather than evidence.
This is just nonsense. Go read Dawkins or something.
sebster wrote:
Except you're simply wrong in your assertion - unemployment among the youth isn't high because of immigration. You've had high levels of immigration for a long time now, throughout which unemployment in general and among the youth has remained at or below historic standards.
Okay I'll ask this for the last time, and I implore you to *please* not just ignore it.
What would happen if immigrants upped sticks and left? According to your assertion, British people simply wouldn't fill those jobs - they would go undone, and our economy would collapse. You are denying the link between businesses in need of labour, and unemployment. If what you are saying is true, it is such a radical economic concept that we'd have heard more about it until now. I mean, it'd be a pretty big headline - "vacancies no longer filled by unemployed".
Now, in the wake of financial disaster you've got high unemployment. Concluding it is due to immigration is just wrong.
I mean, here's the UK's youth unemployment rate for you;
See that marked uptick in 2008, the point where the rate shifted outside of normal historic expectations... that wasn't when immigration suddenly began. It's when the GFC happened. Do you get it now?
So because one thing has an impact, nothing else can impact it? Great logic.
But it isn't the absolute nature of living standards. If it was the absolute nature of living standards that mattered, then fascism wouldn't have just risen in the 1930s, but would have utterly dominated politics in the 19th century, when living conditions were much, much worse. And they'd dominate the discourse of nations in Africa and Asia where living standards are much lower. But of course, that doesn't describe the world at all.
Not true. Living standards for German peasants - the backbone of support for fascism, though few people know this - were far below what they were in the ninteenth century, due to severe rural overcrowding. Then along came a party that promised huge tariffs on imported agricultural products and bingo! a star was born.
But seriously - Britain is not like that. We are not a "poor" nation, despite what the media rubs in our face. Spain has around 50% youth unemployment, and fascism there isn't doing particularly well, same for Italy and Portugal, though Greece has what I think you're looking for - neo-nazis walking around the streets, beating up immigrants and doing well in the polls. Just to remind you that UKIP are *not* a neo-nazi party, they have roughly the same policy agenda that the conservative party did in the 60s. I don't remember Britain in the 60s being particularly fascistic, though it's not my area of historical expertise.
So instead we look at how living standards compare to recent standards, and to people's expectations for how they ought to be able to live. It becomes clear that it is when living standards are stagnant or in decline that people turn to populist politics like the UKIP.
How much do you know about British politics? Are you aware that there is no distinction whatsoever between British political parties? The opposition Labour party even actually *refuse* to release any policies until like 6 months before the election
Unemployment before the election wasn't high. That's just completely fething wrong. The market downturn began in late 2007, and the UK entered 2008 with unemployment below 5.5%.
Youth unemployment was high.
I'd say 15% was pretty high.
And you've made some kind of crazypants assumption that the only possible response to poor economic conditions is a turn to populist parties like the UKIP. In the recession of the early 90s you saw considerable rioting (iirc didn't someone die?) - another response to the social pressures of poor economic conditions.
No, I'm saying that the economic climate isn't that important, though obviously is a contributing factor. What's more important is:
a)The English feeling besieged in their own cities
b)The English feeling that the ruling parties only care about minorities
c)A huge disconnect between how liberal successive governments have been, and how conservative the British people actually are. 3 months for child rape? Wouldn't happen under UKIP.
dæl wrote:
If that is actually the case then I hold little hope for this country. For well over a decade the majority of semi-skilled and unskilled work has been sourced through recruitment agencies. People are asked to sign on with recruitment agencies when they sign onto jobseekers so it's highly unlikely that people aren't aware of the existence of agencies.
I wasn't asked to sign on with an agency. Even if I was I wouldn't have gotten work with them due to lack of experience - I had to use an actual contact to get in on work.
Now, guess who's cheap, and experienced at working in factories/warehouses? Begins with P and rhymes with voles
Agency staff are often inexperienced, and had you actually joined you would have found yourself working pretty quickly. It may have only been a day here or there, but it's work. You can't blame immigrants for wanting it more. Basically what you are saying is the early bird catches the worm, but I want a lie in and then to get angry that someone else got the worm.
People were given the opportunity to change the system. The vast majority of UKIP supporters will have, I am guessing, voted no to AV. They don't then get to complain that the electoral system is unfair when it no longer suits them.
I'm not getting sidelined into a debate about AV.
Yes, because you voted against it and now want to complain about first past the post. You really have noone to blame but yourself and those who also voted the same as you.
Emotions are not more important than logic or evidence for deciding the fate of mankind, quite the opposite. Progress depends upon acting in the most effective manner toward your goals, sometimes the most effective path is not the one that common sense dictates, for example, if you wish to reduce drug related crime the best thing you could do would be to legalise drugs. This seems counter-intuitive, but it is effective. I thought this whole logic/emotion argument was resolved during the Enlightenment, and yet here we are in the 21st Century with someone arguing that we should make decisions based on emotion rather than evidence.
This is just nonsense. Go read Dawkins or something.
That is your response to my explaining a position? You call it nonsense. How about you have a think and see if you can come up with a proper response which explains why you feel the way you do. I can't see how emotion can be better for mankind as it's messy and ineffective when compared to reason and logic, so enlighten me.
I'm saying that the economic climate isn't that important, though obviously is a contributing factor. What's more important is:
a)The English feeling besieged in their own cities
b)The English feeling that the ruling parties only care about minorities
c)A huge disconnect between how liberal successive governments have been, and how conservative the British people actually are. 3 months for child rape? Wouldn't happen under UKIP.
Do NOT claim to speak for England, your view are shared by a tiny minority of this country, so don't think for a second that you have the country behind you. I also notice none of these things are facts, they are feelings. And they are feelings that seem to come from the pages of the Daily Mail. Who was given 3 months for child abuse? How do you know what UKIP's policy on the judiciary is?
Albatross wrote: Looks to me like an upward trend in youth unemployment starting around half way through Blair's second term in office. Guess which country acceded to full EU membership in 2004...
Are you serious? Honestly claiming the ~2% rise in youth unemployment from mid-2003 to mid 2008 is one and the same with ~6% increase from mid 2008 to mid-2009.
2% rise over five years. 6% rise over one year. Totally the same thing.
Really? I wouldn't have thought so. How about replying to things I actually type?
Emotions are not more important than logic or evidence for deciding the fate of mankind, quite the opposite. Progress depends upon acting in the most effective manner toward your goals, sometimes the most effective path is not the one that common sense dictates, for example, if you wish to reduce drug related crime the best thing you could do would be to legalise drugs. This seems counter-intuitive, but it is effective. I thought this whole logic/emotion argument was resolved during the Enlightenment, and yet here we are in the 21st Century with someone arguing that we should make decisions based on emotion rather than evidence.
This is just nonsense. Go read Dawkins or something.
That is your response to my explaining a position? You call it nonsense. How about you have a think and see if you can come up with a proper response which explains why you feel the way you do. I can't see how emotion can be better for mankind as it's messy and ineffective when compared to reason and logic, so enlighten me.
I'm gonna jump in here, because the fact that BryllCream is, frankly, a raving lunatic shouldn't leave you with the feeling that you are correct. Because you aren't.
Abortion has had, and continues to have a deleterious effect on the crime rate in the USA, because the uptake of abortions in the wake of Roe v. Wade meant that many children who would otherwise have been born (I'm simplifying this massively, but the data is out there), but were aborted before they could embark upon a life of crime, do not now exist. The net effect of this is that crime has steadily decreased. Should abortion be mandatory for young, poor, unmarried girls from challenging backgrounds?
Explain why (or why not) without referring to 'emotion' but also without sounding like one of history's monsters.
Also, the idea that the best way to reduce drug-crime is to legalise drugs? Sorry, but that's the sort of facile drivel I would have heard from dreadlocked bores at the Steve Biko Lounge of my local student union, if my overwhelming desire to kick such people's heads in hadn't precluded my drinking there. I mean, seriously, golf-clap. The best way to reduce the number of people in prison for murder is to legalise murder, too. Have I just blown your mind?
Abortion has had, and continues to have a deleterious effect on the crime rate in the USA, because the uptake of abortions in the wake of Roe v. Wade meant that many children who would otherwise have been born (I'm simplifying this massively, but the data is out there), but were aborted before they could embark upon a life of crime, do not now exist. The net effect of this is that crime has steadily decreased. Should abortion be mandatory for young, poor, unmarried girls from challenging backgrounds?
Explain why (or why not) without referring to 'emotion' but also without sounding like one of history's monsters.
Absolutely not, for a start you would need to look at the problem comprehensively and ascertain all of the causes of the crime reduction and all of the effects of the increased abortion rate. But let's for simplicities sake take what you proposed as the entire issue. Logically you would want a reduction in the number of children born in that situation, however every so often a child will be born who is exceptional, if you were to abort all of the children the exceptional child is never born. No, abortion should remain a choice, and the best form of birth control is education, so make it easy for these girls to get an abortion should they choose, mandatory abortion is not preferable. There would also be an influx of unregistered children which would cause all manner of social problems.
Also, the idea that the best way to reduce drug-crime is to legalise drugs? Sorry, but that's the sort of facile drivel I would have heard from dreadlocked bores at the Steve Biko Lounge of my local student union, if my overwhelming desire to kick such people's heads in hadn't precluded my drinking there. I mean, seriously, golf-clap. The best way to reduce the number of people in prison for murder is to legalise murder, too. Have I just blown your mind?
I said drug related crime, so burglary, violence etc. By legalising drug use you reduce the price massively, even with high taxation, which reduces the amount of stolen goods. By providing areas for drug use you reduce risk to users and passers by. By removing dealers violent crime will see a reduction. You will also see a reduction in the power level of some criminals, which may contribute to a reduction in such things as human trafficking and prostitution.
Albatross wrote: Also, the idea that the best way to reduce drug-crime is to legalise drugs? Sorry, but that's the sort of facile drivel I would have heard from dreadlocked bores at the Steve Biko Lounge of my local student union, if my overwhelming desire to kick such people's heads in hadn't precluded my drinking there. I mean, seriously, golf-clap. The best way to reduce the number of people in prison for murder is to legalise murder, too. Have I just blown your mind?
It's not complete nonsense in 2001 Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession, also drug users were to be targeted with therapy rather than prison sentences and the country saw five years after the start of decriminalization,
illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled. That being said that type of policy
might not work for other countries or there might be some other unknown variables that effect those reductions.
Albatross wrote: Also, the idea that the best way to reduce drug-crime is to legalise drugs? Sorry, but that's the sort of facile drivel I would have heard from dreadlocked bores at the Steve Biko Lounge of my local student union, if my overwhelming desire to kick such people's heads in hadn't precluded my drinking there. I mean, seriously, golf-clap. The best way to reduce the number of people in prison for murder is to legalise murder, too. Have I just blown your mind?
It's not complete nonsense in 2001 Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession, also drug users were to be targeted with therapy rather than prison sentences and the country saw five years after the start of decriminalization,
illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled. That being said that type of policy
might not work for other countries or there might be some other unknown variables that effect those reductions.
The problem with legalizing drugs in the US is that the drug cartels would still smuggle their product into the US as they could offer it cheaper than anything being taxed. Plus they still would have a market among those not able to purchase the drugs.
Weed had a proposed legal age of 21 IIRC from the last bill in CA.
The illegal growers could still sell to the under 21 market. And then you will still have people bootlegging weed to get away from taxes.
All it will do is make it harder to distinguish between legal and illegal weed.
If we are going to legalize weed as a medicinal drug it should be regulated like any other prescription drug. You can't make it yourself, you have to buy it from a regulated dispensary and only if you have a prescription. This will clear up the issue of people getting a bunch of their friends with licenses together and growing 100+ plants together "for personal use".
And stop giving out prescriptions out to anyone willing to pony up the license fee.
And if they do get crowded out of the weed market, there's always Heroine and Crack. Which I do not see getting legalized any time soon.
Agency staff are often inexperienced, and had you actually joined you would have found yourself working pretty quickly. It may have only been a day here or there, but it's work. You can't blame immigrants for wanting it more. Basically what you are saying is the early bird catches the worm, but I want a lie in and then to get angry that someone else got the worm.
So the dozen agencies that I applied for work in told me that I wasn't experienced enough because they didn't like my face? I'm sick of you directly contradicting the experiences of myself and people I know. How about you come down to Nottingham and I'll take you to the canteen at work, then I'll take you to a jobcentre. Then you can ask the guys at the jobcentre who wants a job in the factory.
Yes, because you voted against it and now want to complain about first past the post. You really have noone to blame but yourself and those who also voted the same as you.
Oh look you're still banging on about AV.
That is your response to my explaining a position? You call it nonsense. How about you have a think and see if you can come up with a proper response which explains why you feel the way you do. I can't see how emotion can be better for mankind as it's messy and ineffective when compared to reason and logic, so enlighten me.
No I'm not, and the more you bang on about this the more you sound like a robot, it's a bit depressing.
Do NOT claim to speak for England, your view are shared by a tiny minority of this country, so don't think for a second that you have the country behind you. I also notice none of these things are facts, they are feelings. And they are feelings that seem to come from the pages of the Daily Mail. Who was given 3 months for child abuse? How do you know what UKIP's policy on the judiciary is?
Oh look I read the Daily Mail then. I suppose the fact that I find myself constantly argueing with racists is just a figment of my imagination, or the years I spent reading the Guardian (which is a gak newspaper by the way).
I'm speaking as someone with the same views and opinions as the people I know, who happen to be working class English people. I'm sure you've got a survey somewhere that says that working class English people aren't racist, the same way I have a survey that says builders always pay taxes.
Edit: I assume that the data is for the UK but I imagine we'd see a similar trend for the US.
Yeah it's UK, but should correspond to the US as well. It's possible that alcohol is less damaging to the US as you don't have quite the problems we do with it, but the results should broadly come out the same.
The fact that you can buy cigarettes and alcohol everywhere kind of excassebates that though. Coke/heroin in particular are awful things, though ecstasy and weed are basically harmless.
BryllCream wrote: How about you come down to Nottingham and I'll take you to the canteen at work, then I'll take you to a jobcentre. Then you can ask the guys at the jobcentre who wants a job in the factory.
Basically you are saying that British people don't want to work with foreigners, yes? So let me get this right...
You think that immigration is the cause of unemployment.
You have acknowledged that immigrants are more proactive in getting work because they try harder.
You now claim that British people don't want to work in the same place as immigrants.
So rather than laziness or bigotry being the cause of unemployment among the young, you think it is in fact the tax paying immigrant who gets on with his job, rather than those who feel the country owes them a living? And not only owes them a living but one where they don't have to interact with anyone who isn't white if they don't want to?
That is your response to my explaining a position? You call it nonsense. How about you have a think and see if you can come up with a proper response which explains why you feel the way you do. I can't see how emotion can be better for mankind as it's messy and ineffective when compared to reason and logic, so enlighten me.
No I'm not, and the more you bang on about this the more you sound like a robot, it's a bit depressing.
You're not what? I didn't ask a question that answer makes sense to.
Do NOT claim to speak for England, your view are shared by a tiny minority of this country, so don't think for a second that you have the country behind you. I also notice none of these things are facts, they are feelings. And they are feelings that seem to come from the pages of the Daily Mail. Who was given 3 months for child abuse? How do you know what UKIP's policy on the judiciary is?
Oh look I read the Daily Mail then. I suppose the fact that I find myself constantly argueing with racists is just a figment of my imagination, or the years I spent reading the Guardian (which is a gak newspaper by the way).
I'm speaking as someone with the same views and opinions as the people I know, who happen to be working class English people. I'm sure you've got a survey somewhere that says that working class English people aren't racist, the same way I have a survey that says builders always pay taxes.
You voted for a party that received 6% of the electorate's votes, do you really think the majority of the British people agree with you?
Cool, lets see you peer reviewed study into the taxes paid by builders then, what journal was it published in? You obviously don't understand how studies work, you don't just make up whatever you want and then publish it.
You didn't answer my question on UKIP's policy on the judiciary, you voted for them after all, so what did you vote for regarding crime and punishment? What economic strategy did you vote for? What foreign policy?
Abortion has had, and continues to have a deleterious effect on the crime rate in the USA, because the uptake of abortions in the wake of Roe v. Wade meant that many children who would otherwise have been born (I'm simplifying this massively, but the data is out there), but were aborted before they could embark upon a life of crime, do not now exist. The net effect of this is that crime has steadily decreased. Should abortion be mandatory for young, poor, unmarried girls from challenging backgrounds?
Explain why (or why not) without referring to 'emotion' but also without sounding like one of history's monsters.
Absolutely not, for a start you would need to look at the problem comprehensively and ascertain all of the causes of the crime reduction and all of the effects of the increased abortion rate.
That was controlled for as part of Levitt's analysis. Also, states that legalised abortion early experienced early drops in their crime rates.
Logically you would want a reduction in the number of children born in that situation, however every so often a child will be born who is exceptional, if you were to abort all of the children the exceptional child is never born.
Bingo! You just made an emotional choice. You effectively just sacrificed the lives of people who would otherwise have gone un-murdered because of some romantic notion of an 'exceptional' child. You call it logical, however the reality is that your suggestion is anything but. Surely if we were treating this objectively we would conclude that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, in that the benefit to humanity of a large number of unproductive (indeed, harmful) members of society never existing is vastly greater than the nebulous possibility that, from the ranks of the unwanted, a great person will emerge. And that's a best case scenario. In the stratum of society we are talking about, 'exceptional' means holding down a job and being responsible enough to bring children into a stable and loving environment.
I'm not arguing for mandatory abortion amongst the underprivileged. It's a bad idea, but emotional reasoning definitely plays a large part in that being a bad idea. To deny this is basically just posturing on your part, I feel.
Also, the idea that the best way to reduce drug-crime is to legalise drugs? Sorry, but that's the sort of facile drivel I would have heard from dreadlocked bores at the Steve Biko Lounge of my local student union, if my overwhelming desire to kick such people's heads in hadn't precluded my drinking there. I mean, seriously, golf-clap. The best way to reduce the number of people in prison for murder is to legalise murder, too. Have I just blown your mind?
I said drug related crime, so burglary, violence etc. By legalising drug use you reduce the price massively, even with high taxation, which reduces the amount of stolen goods.
There is know way you can know any of that. That's just guesswork.
By providing areas for drug use you reduce risk to users and passers by. By removing dealers violent crime will see a reduction. You will also see a reduction in the power level of some criminals, which may contribute to a reduction in such things as human trafficking and prostitution.
Again, how is any of that knowable within the specific context of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, I support some drug legalisation. For example, weed should have been legalised around 30 years ago. But hard drugs? Speaking as probably the only person in this thread who has smoked crack, I can confidently say that it should never be legalised, and I would be surprisingly relaxed about heroin dealers being executed by firing squad in town squares up and down the land.
Automatically Appended Next Post: P.S. - I love working with immigrants. It's genuinely interesting.
So rather than laziness or bigotry being the cause of unemployment among the young
How is it that liberals always talk about representing young people or the working class and then show nothing but bigotry towards them. In my book liberalism is the most gutter gutless ideology in existence second only to the authority worship I see amongst American mainstream conservatives.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote: I plan to vote UKIP, actually - perhaps that makes me racist, but that's not how I see it.
Limiting immigration makes sense, as far as I'm concerned, and their other policies are equally as good as anything else that any of the other parties are lying about wanting to do.
You do understand that both the US and the UK economies are built on the notion of increasing populations, that the current white populations are decreasing and that both nations actually benefit from immigrants coming to and working in the country?
If they come to the US to work, fine. If they come to the US for the benefits, as many do, then they are not "buying in" to the program you describe above.
The capitalist ideal of increasing population size only works insomuch as your nation remains capitalist. When you have people rewarded with welfare for breeding, then sitting on their asses collecting money, the system fails miserably. The result is higher crime rates, taxes, and overall social degradation.
The capitalist ideal of increasing population size only works insomuch as your nation remains capitalist
Capitalism and Usury are the downfall of the West, it leads to a disillusioned proletariat that will follow anyone who will promise then a better life and a worthless elite composed of the worst people.
*
) for racists, and it would appear they are. Do any of the other main parties describe themselves as non-racist? They don't need to, and while other parties have had some members of the far right they haven't crowded like moths around a flame as they have to UKIP. Tommy Robinson (or whatever his real name is) told all EDL candidates to stand down in areas where UKIP stood a chance of getting in, for fear of splitting the vote, so he must see something similar in their platforms.
