So we have an £80bn deficit and are trillions in debt and the problem is the government just isn't spending enough money?
How many more trillions do you suggest we borrow?
Are you also suggesting that immigration does not increase the population - and as a result increase the pressures on those services on top of any general change in the population due to natural birth and deaths?
I assume you believe there should be no immigration controls at all - as you consider such things to be racist. A perfectly noble sentiment I am sure - but it's a great way to make a welfare state unsustainable.
We have a population of 65 million. Of that, a tiny percentage are foreign nationals. The countries population is growing as a whole...everyone is having children...people are living longer.
Taxes should be going up, a massive house building project is needed too.
I am absolutely fine with being in Europe and open boarders. UKIP are dangerous and totally peddle something very unpleasant.
Farage was on Andrew Neil (again today) going on about the plight of Christians. What about the plight of other races and religions? The narrative of UKIP is very clear to me and it is not what the UK is about at all.
We have a population of 65 million. Of that, a tiny percentage are foreign nationals. The countries population is growing as a whole...everyone is having children...people are living longer.
Taxes should be going up, a massive house building project is needed too.
I am absolutely fine with being in Europe and open boarders. UKIP are dangerous and totally peddle something very unpleasant.
Farage was on Andrew Neil (again today) going on about the plight of Christians. What about the plight of other races and religions? The narrative of UKIP is very clear to me and it is not what the UK is about at all.
"Dangerous" because they want a responsible points-based immigration system that doesn't put huge pressure on our infrastructure by allowing the world and his wife to come here?
And Farage was quite right about the plight of Christians....they are the most persecuted group in that part of the world. I would say the narrative of UKIP is utter common sense.
We have a population of 65 million. Of that, a tiny percentage are foreign nationals. The countries population is growing as a whole...everyone is having children...people are living longer.
Taxes should be going up, a massive house building project is needed too.
I am absolutely fine with being in Europe and open boarders. UKIP are dangerous and totally peddle something very unpleasant.
Farage was on Andrew Neil (again today) going on about the plight of Christians. What about the plight of other races and religions? The narrative of UKIP is very clear to me and it is not what the UK is about at all.
Dangerous how, so far I have only seen those who support UKIP under duress from unpleasant anti UKIP groups?
I watched Sunday Politics and saw the interview, Nigel was 'going on about Christians' in relation to a specific question and a specific group of Christians. Was he just generically going on? No. But even if he was, even if he was a ardent supporter of the Christian faith, ermmmm what's wrong with that? You are here daily spurting out the same stuff many do, you are challenged by several people yet never put meat on your bone. If you just throw out lines of no substance you are in effect aping the behaviour you believe those you denigrate commit?
[/B]
"Dangerous" because they want a responsible points-based immigration system that doesn't put huge pressure on our infrastructure by allowing the world and his wife to come here?
And Farage was quite right about the plight of Christians....they are the most persecuted group in that part of the world. I would say the narrative of UKIP is utter common sense.
Hear hear, but they are not the most persecuted. The persecutors persecute more people from their own religion (you know, different interpretation of the same religion).
I've got one acquaintance on Facebook who comments on the UKIP page, which means it shows up on my feed. The comments left by supporters are almost without fail lacking in basic spelling and grammar. And hilarious to read they are.
I'm not saying UKIP are racist but their appeal is to the absolute lowest common denominator.
I've got one acquaintance on Facebook who comments on the UKIP page, which means it shows up on my feed. The comments left by supporters are almost without fail lacking in basic spelling and grammar. And hilarious to read they are.
I'm not saying UKIP are racist but their appeal is to the absolute lowest common denominator.
......and what has spelling and grammar have to do with it, are you being judgemental because of someone's English skills?
......and have you heard of the saying, "everything before the word but is bs"..... You are insinuating exactly that which you say you are not or it's inclusion would not be relevant and pray tell, what is the lowest common denominator?
All the while Osborne has been reducing the deficit he is borrowing more money. Borrowing didn't stop because austerity started. Nor will it spiral out of control if the deficit isn't reduced quite as fast, as Labour proposes so they don't have to make such damaging cuts. The reason originally cited for rapid reduction was to protect our AAA+ credit rating. But then we lost that anyway and..... nothing happened. The sky didn't fall in. So we could have been more cautious in our cuts and not strangled economic growth for three wasted years. In fact the Coalition has borrowed more money than New Labour did. Most of our National Debt has been built up under Conservative Prime Ministers.
As for immigration making the welfare state unsustainable, that only applies if all immigrants were on benefits. If they are working and paying tax then they aren't draining the system any more than those born here are. It's a myth that immigrants are a burden.
You use the term being on benefits. Do you count tax credits costing us £35 billion a year to subsidise low wages, or the £25bn on housing benefit to subsidise low wages and high housing rents, or the £8k a year to educate a child in a state school. In reality most people in the UK are now taking out more in state support than they pay in taxes - and even if new arrivals were typical of the wider population they add to those costs and pressures.
And of course where is the benefits bill biggest per head due to housing benefit - in London where 40 per cent of the population was born abroad.
Because the UK is so expensive to live in a huge share of the population even in work need government handouts to survive. And as the population grows and the pressures on resources increase so those forms of assistance need to rise so people can pay their bills.
But hey - trillions of debt don't matter. Let's just spend a few trillion more.
I've got one acquaintance on Facebook who comments on the UKIP page, which means it shows up on my feed. The comments left by supporters are almost without fail lacking in basic spelling and grammar. And hilarious to read they are.
A bit like the Lefties who post in the DS Politics forum
But maybe there might be something in the concept that if you:
You have a shortage of school places
Have to wait 2-3 weeks to see your GP
Have to wait hours to be seen in A&E
Can't find or afford a decent home
Can't get on your train in the morning
Get stuck in traffic jams in the rush hour and
Your teenage kids can only find low wage zero hours jobs - and have to compete with many others just to get an interview
then
Maybe just maybe this might be affected by how many people live in the country. Just a thought!
UKIP want net immigration down to 50,000 a year.
The difference between what UKIP want and actual net immigration over the 11 years 2001-2011 was just under 2 million. The total population of the UK in 2011 was 63.2 million. These extra just under 2 million immigrants UKIP would have kept out amount to 3% of the UK population. 1 person out of every 33 people resident in the UK.
I do not think 3% of the population can be held responsible for the things you list.
Or alternatively our government with an £80bn deficit and £1.5 trillion in debt just isn't borrowing enough money to solve all these problems
Immigrants according to the government are net contributors. The are a financial boon, providing us with more working age tax payers to help bring down the deficit and pay off the national debt.
I've got one acquaintance on Facebook who comments on the UKIP page, which means it shows up on my feed. The comments left by supporters are almost without fail lacking in basic spelling and grammar. And hilarious to read they are.
I'm not saying UKIP are racist but their appeal is to the absolute lowest common denominator.
Maybe some of them are recent arrivals to the UK and are in the process of learning English as a language including grammar and spelling?! It must be so wonderful to be so superior that you sneer at people generally who have difficulties in spelling or grammar - which of course if you applied that to new migrants who are taking steps to learn the language would of course be seen as racist in your eyes.
Not everyone is academic - but it doesn't make them less worthy than you.
PS You must spend a lot of time up at the top of hills - so you can enjoy looking down on people!
I've got one acquaintance on Facebook who comments on the UKIP page, which means it shows up on my feed. The comments left by supporters are almost without fail lacking in basic spelling and grammar. And hilarious to read they are.
I'm not saying UKIP are racist but their appeal is to the absolute lowest common denominator.
Have a look on the hope not hate page. The spelling and grammar isn't too hot there either.
And some of the lefties on there seem quite dangerous.
"... the results of the poll suggest that Ukip voters admit to being significantly more racially prejudiced than the population as a whole ..."
is a slight exaggeration. Yes UKIP topped that particular poll with their huge sample of 163 voters... but the Conservative voters weren't that far behind and as shown, all parties have voters who would consider themselves racial prejudice.
Thanks for the poll link. It also shows that the proportion describing themselves as ‘very prejudiced against people of other races' is as follows:
UKIP – 6%
Con – 1%
Lab – 1%
Lib – 0%
That looks like a pretty significant difference to me.
As for the number describing themselves as ‘Not prejudiced at all’:
UKIP – 49%
Con – 60%
Lab – 72%
Lib – 73%
Again, a significant difference.
Now, I'm not saying that UKIP's policies or leaders are racist, but the party does seem to attract more than its fair share of racists.
Thanks for the poll link. It also shows that the proportion describing themselves as ‘very prejudiced against people of other races' is as follows:
UKIP – 6%
Con – 1%
Lab – 1%
Lib – 0%
That looks like a pretty significant difference to me.
As for the number describing themselves as ‘Not prejudiced at all’:
UKIP – 49%
Con – 60%
Lab – 72%
Lib – 73%
Again, a significant difference.
Now, I'm not saying that UKIP's policies or leaders are racist, but the party does seem to attract more than its fair share of racists.
I don't think anyone is denying that, but that does not make a party and it's policies racist does it? They are still a minority within the party support and whether you or I like it or not, every extreme bigot (not just the perceived white racist) has every right to put their cross in the box of their choice come election day.
Have a look on the hope not hate page. The spelling and grammar isn't too hot there either.
And some of the lefties on there seem quite dangerous.
Yes - they go around harassing 72 year old pensioners and then go crying like babies to the police when those pensioners stand up for themselves. Maybe they should get a proper job ?
I don't think anyone is denying that, but that does not make a party and it's policies racist does it? They are still a minority within the party support
A minority of UKIP supporters consider themselves ‘Not prejudiced at all’: UKIP 49%
The majority consider themselves prejudice.
You use the term being on benefits. Do you count tax credits costing us £35 billion a year to subsidise low wages, or the £25bn on housing benefit to subsidise low wages and high housing rents, or the £8k a year to educate a child in a state school. In reality most people in the UK are now taking out more in state support than they pay in taxes - and even if new arrivals were typical of the wider population they add to those costs and pressures.
Indeed, most people on benefits are the "hard working families" all the parties go on about. But studies show immigrants are net contributors, so even if some manage to get tax credits, overall their contribution is positive.
And of course where is the benefits bill biggest per head due to housing benefit - in London where 40 per cent of the population was born abroad.
All that says is living and working in London is ridiculously expensive. If people weren't prepared to live and do low paid jobs there, what would happen to the power house of our economy? If it wasn't immigrants there doing the jobs they'd be local people. Same net contribution.
Because the UK is so expensive to live in a huge share of the population even in work need government handouts to survive. And as the population grows and the pressures on resources increase so those forms of assistance need to rise so people can pay their bills.
But hey - trillions of debt don't matter. Let's just spend a few trillion more.
Of course debt matters, but the deficit is more important. We'll never pay the debt off, we've had a national debt for hundreds of years, but as long as our deficit is low or even a surplus our debt interest will be sustainable.
Stopping more immigrants entering the UK won't make things any better. It might make things worse.
A minority of UKIP supporters consider themselves ‘Not prejudiced at all’: UKIP 49%
The majority consider themselves prejudice.
Sample size? Demographics? The question could just measure the honesty of those being questioned? The poll is not good enough to draw conclusions from and certainly not good enough to then consider those conclusions as damning. However, I accept as I am sure most people do, UKIP has attracted a greater than fair share of the less savoury people in the UK, but that does not a racist party make does it?
Everyone is prejudiced, not everyone's prejudice is race, 6% said their prejudice was race. That is a minority %.
The poll question was are you prejudiced “against people of other races”
Sample size, demographics, measure of honesty. I'm not actually disagreeing with you, everyone accepts the general conclusion, UKIP attracts more than it's fair share of unsavoury people and their views, however it equally may just attract more than it's fair share of people prepared to answer the question honestly too. Unfortunately the poll is far to unscientific to draw a definitive conclusion regarding actual numbers. The poll does however offer some evidence of that which everybody knows anyway, but taking into account the thread title, it does does not a racist party make?
Sample size, demographics, measure of honesty. I'm not actually disagreeing with you, everyone accepts the general conclusion, UKIP attracts more than it's fair share of unsavoury people and their views, however it equally may just attract more than it's fair share of people prepared to answer the question honestly too. Unfortunately the poll is far to unscientific to draw a definitive conclusion regarding actual numbers. The poll does however offer some evidence of that which everybody knows anyway, but taking into account the thread title, it does does not a racist party make?
In what way is the poll unscientific? All polls use sampling techniques. What's different about this poll that makes it unscientific?
Either you think all polls are unscientific, or you just don't like this one because you don't like the result.
In what way is the poll unscientific? All polls use sampling techniques. What's different about this poll that makes it unscientific?
Either you think all polls are unscientific, or you just don't like this one because you don't like the result.
Bingo. That is correct, the big pollsters can apply weighting and varience in the fashion they choose (notice: they choose) so it is not a standardised principle across the board. The big polls have samples of 1000 - 2000 from an electorate of near 50 million. This poll is a sample of 163 I believe. I am not disputing the result, UKIP attracts more than it's fair share of unsavoury people (how is that statement not liking the result?)........ but everyone, absolutely everyone knows this. Can you not accept the possibilituies I am also pointing out, polls and the data feeds and manipulation, ALL polls, have serious dubious method and result. If they were larger samples and standardised models, they'd all come out about the same, but we all know that that is not always the case, or is that because you don't like what I suggest. Maybe the UKIP supporters for this poll demonstrate a more willing honesty towards the question, ergo the poll is a measure of honesty perhaps. How many people who said they supported another party lied when asked a question regarding prejudice specifically to race? I can't answer that question, can you. No. The data is therefore flawed as all polling data is. (So is the Census, the biggest poll of them all.)
The poll, the people, the support does not a racist party make. The thread subject. Can you not admit that?
Google it oir look in a dictionary for the meaning of prejudice too. Everyone, absolutely everyone is prejudice by it's very definition, sometimes, often or rarely, everyoine is, but not everyone's prejudice is race.
I don't think anyone is denying that, but that does not make a party and it's policies racist does it? They are still a minority within the party support and whether you or I like it or not, every extreme bigot (not just the perceived white racist) has every right to put their cross in the box of their choice come election day.
I think that poll shows a lot of people are rather dishonest and give the correct answer not what they really think.
I think that poll shows a lot of people are rather dishonest and give the correct answer not what they really think.
It doesn't matter, a sample of 163 from Oxford may give a massively different answer to 163 from Tower Hamlets who may give a massively different answer to residents of Inverness who may give a ........... and so on. The sample size is just to small to accomodate results that mean anything other than the 'general' message which everyone in the UK is fully aware of anyway. UKIP has more than it's fair share of unsavoury characters within their support. However (and none of the anti kippers want to admit it) some unsavoury characters does not a racist party make.
Rather than target immigrants...which is only one step away from racism... what UKIP should be saying is that the population as a whole/in general terms is growing. The lack of housing, school places and the like is not down to immigrants, it's down to the growth in the general population and successive governments not building enough affordable homes and making enough school places etc.
UKIP aren't the solution at all.
Your usual asinine comments. Why don't you endeavour to provide evidence for your asinine claims of 'targeting' immigrants? Demanding a controlled immigration policy, is from being 'racist', (which in itself is a stupid claim, because immigrants are comprised of ALL races), and is merely requiring a policy that is practised by ALL countries that are not members of the EU - which, because it is a non- EU policy, is eminently sensible.
So, whether or not UKIP is the solution, their policies are undoubtedly more sensible than those currently implemented by our ' in thrall' of the EU parts.
Comments
We have a population of 65 million. Of that, a tiny percentage are foreign nationals. The countries population is growing as a whole...everyone is having children...people are living longer.
Taxes should be going up, a massive house building project is needed too.
I am absolutely fine with being in Europe and open boarders. UKIP are dangerous and totally peddle something very unpleasant.
Farage was on Andrew Neil (again today) going on about the plight of Christians. What about the plight of other races and religions? The narrative of UKIP is very clear to me and it is not what the UK is about at all.
"Dangerous" because they want a responsible points-based immigration system that doesn't put huge pressure on our infrastructure by allowing the world and his wife to come here?
And Farage was quite right about the plight of Christians....they are the most persecuted group in that part of the world. I would say the narrative of UKIP is utter common sense.
Dangerous how, so far I have only seen those who support UKIP under duress from unpleasant anti UKIP groups?
I watched Sunday Politics and saw the interview, Nigel was 'going on about Christians' in relation to a specific question and a specific group of Christians. Was he just generically going on? No. But even if he was, even if he was a ardent supporter of the Christian faith, ermmmm what's wrong with that? You are here daily spurting out the same stuff many do, you are challenged by several people yet never put meat on your bone. If you just throw out lines of no substance you are in effect aping the behaviour you believe those you denigrate commit?
Hear hear, but they are not the most persecuted. The persecutors persecute more people from their own religion (you know, different interpretation of the same religion).
I'm not saying UKIP are racist but their appeal is to the absolute lowest common denominator.
......and what has spelling and grammar have to do with it, are you being judgemental because of someone's English skills?
......and have you heard of the saying, "everything before the word but is bs"..... You are insinuating exactly that which you say you are not or it's inclusion would not be relevant and pray tell, what is the lowest common denominator?
You use the term being on benefits. Do you count tax credits costing us £35 billion a year to subsidise low wages, or the £25bn on housing benefit to subsidise low wages and high housing rents, or the £8k a year to educate a child in a state school. In reality most people in the UK are now taking out more in state support than they pay in taxes - and even if new arrivals were typical of the wider population they add to those costs and pressures.
And of course where is the benefits bill biggest per head due to housing benefit - in London where 40 per cent of the population was born abroad.
Because the UK is so expensive to live in a huge share of the population even in work need government handouts to survive. And as the population grows and the pressures on resources increase so those forms of assistance need to rise so people can pay their bills.
But hey - trillions of debt don't matter. Let's just spend a few trillion more.
A bit like the Lefties who post in the DS Politics forum
You could have fooled me!
The difference between what UKIP want and actual net immigration over the 11 years 2001-2011 was just under 2 million. The total population of the UK in 2011 was 63.2 million. These extra just under 2 million immigrants UKIP would have kept out amount to 3% of the UK population. 1 person out of every 33 people resident in the UK.
I do not think 3% of the population can be held responsible for the things you list. Immigrants according to the government are net contributors. The are a financial boon, providing us with more working age tax payers to help bring down the deficit and pay off the national debt.
Maybe some of them are recent arrivals to the UK and are in the process of learning English as a language including grammar and spelling?! It must be so wonderful to be so superior that you sneer at people generally who have difficulties in spelling or grammar - which of course if you applied that to new migrants who are taking steps to learn the language would of course be seen as racist in your eyes.
Not everyone is academic - but it doesn't make them less worthy than you.
PS You must spend a lot of time up at the top of hills - so you can enjoy looking down on people!
Your contributions aren't going to win any nobel prizes either.
Have a look on the hope not hate page. The spelling and grammar isn't too hot there either.
And some of the lefties on there seem quite dangerous.
Thanks for the poll link. It also shows that the proportion describing themselves as ‘very prejudiced against people of other races' is as follows:
UKIP – 6%
Con – 1%
Lab – 1%
Lib – 0%
That looks like a pretty significant difference to me.
As for the number describing themselves as ‘Not prejudiced at all’:
UKIP – 49%
Con – 60%
Lab – 72%
Lib – 73%
Again, a significant difference.
Now, I'm not saying that UKIP's policies or leaders are racist, but the party does seem to attract more than its fair share of racists.
I don't think anyone is denying that, but that does not make a party and it's policies racist does it? They are still a minority within the party support and whether you or I like it or not, every extreme bigot (not just the perceived white racist) has every right to put their cross in the box of their choice come election day.
Yes - they go around harassing 72 year old pensioners and then go crying like babies to the police when those pensioners stand up for themselves. Maybe they should get a proper job ?
The majority consider themselves prejudice.
All that says is living and working in London is ridiculously expensive. If people weren't prepared to live and do low paid jobs there, what would happen to the power house of our economy? If it wasn't immigrants there doing the jobs they'd be local people. Same net contribution.
Of course debt matters, but the deficit is more important. We'll never pay the debt off, we've had a national debt for hundreds of years, but as long as our deficit is low or even a surplus our debt interest will be sustainable.
Stopping more immigrants entering the UK won't make things any better. It might make things worse.
Sample size? Demographics? The question could just measure the honesty of those being questioned? The poll is not good enough to draw conclusions from and certainly not good enough to then consider those conclusions as damning. However, I accept as I am sure most people do, UKIP has attracted a greater than fair share of the less savoury people in the UK, but that does not a racist party make does it?
Everyone is prejudiced, not everyone's prejudice is race, 6% said their prejudice was race. That is a minority %.
Sample size, demographics, measure of honesty. I'm not actually disagreeing with you, everyone accepts the general conclusion, UKIP attracts more than it's fair share of unsavoury people and their views, however it equally may just attract more than it's fair share of people prepared to answer the question honestly too. Unfortunately the poll is far to unscientific to draw a definitive conclusion regarding actual numbers. The poll does however offer some evidence of that which everybody knows anyway, but taking into account the thread title, it does does not a racist party make?
In what way is the poll unscientific? All polls use sampling techniques. What's different about this poll that makes it unscientific?
Either you think all polls are unscientific, or you just don't like this one because you don't like the result.
Bingo. That is correct, the big pollsters can apply weighting and varience in the fashion they choose (notice: they choose) so it is not a standardised principle across the board. The big polls have samples of 1000 - 2000 from an electorate of near 50 million. This poll is a sample of 163 I believe. I am not disputing the result, UKIP attracts more than it's fair share of unsavoury people (how is that statement not liking the result?)........ but everyone, absolutely everyone knows this. Can you not accept the possibilituies I am also pointing out, polls and the data feeds and manipulation, ALL polls, have serious dubious method and result. If they were larger samples and standardised models, they'd all come out about the same, but we all know that that is not always the case, or is that because you don't like what I suggest. Maybe the UKIP supporters for this poll demonstrate a more willing honesty towards the question, ergo the poll is a measure of honesty perhaps. How many people who said they supported another party lied when asked a question regarding prejudice specifically to race? I can't answer that question, can you. No. The data is therefore flawed as all polling data is. (So is the Census, the biggest poll of them all.)
The poll, the people, the support does not a racist party make. The thread subject. Can you not admit that?
Google it oir look in a dictionary for the meaning of prejudice too. Everyone, absolutely everyone is prejudice by it's very definition, sometimes, often or rarely, everyoine is, but not everyone's prejudice is race.
I think that poll shows a lot of people are rather dishonest and give the correct answer not what they really think.
It doesn't matter, a sample of 163 from Oxford may give a massively different answer to 163 from Tower Hamlets who may give a massively different answer to residents of Inverness who may give a ........... and so on. The sample size is just to small to accomodate results that mean anything other than the 'general' message which everyone in the UK is fully aware of anyway. UKIP has more than it's fair share of unsavoury characters within their support. However (and none of the anti kippers want to admit it) some unsavoury characters does not a racist party make.
So, whether or not UKIP is the solution, their policies are undoubtedly more sensible than those currently implemented by our ' in thrall' of the EU parts.