Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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.

I didn't say that.

You have said that 2+2 is 5, when I can clearly prove that it's 4.

See, it's easy to disprove someone if you make up your arguments

 Ketara wrote:

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.

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.

 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.

I mentioned it when I actually meant "English working class". Didn't mean to offend anyone by it.

To those who think that UKIP are right, where you pleased about today's Queen's Speech and it's focus on immigration?

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.

 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.

Why do people keep saying that the UK is in a triple-dip recession? We aren't.

 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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 dæl wrote:

 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:

 dæl wrote:

 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.

 dæl wrote:

That's not logic, that's a strawman.

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.

 BryllCream wrote:

 dæl wrote:

That's not logic, that's a strawman.

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.

 sebster wrote:

 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:

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 BryllCream wrote:

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.

 dæl wrote:

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.

 BryllCream wrote:

 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.