The original post to which you replied mentioned "the people of Thanet" and not specifically those voting for Nigel Farage.
If 61% of voters in Thanet South vote for candidates other than Nigel Farage, then it is not reasonable to claim thereby that the other parties have nothing to offer the "people of Thanet" - not that it would be reasonable to do so in any event, since it's not a binary either/or: one does not necessarily vote for Party A on the grounds that Parties B, C, D, E and F have nothing to offer.
Blame the voting system then. It works both ways, but I don't see many people complaining when their preferred party MP gets into office using the same principle.
All the low skilled, low paid jobs have already been taken, hence the disproportionate unemployment rate amongst young people.
So for the second time of asking , what is UKIP actually offering young people? Can't see much in their manifesto apart from some bromide about tuition fees!
So for the second time of asking , what is UKIP actually offering young people? Can't see much in their manifesto apart from some bromide about tuition fees!
What are any of the other parties offering young people? I hear a lot about "hard working families" but not much else. Both Labour and the Tories have already consigned them to the political scrap heap, mainly as they do not generally vote in any great numbers. Frankly, I don't blame them for not voting for anyone.
What are any of the other parties offering young people? I hear a lot about "hard working families" but not much else. Both Labour and the Tories have already consigned them to the political scrap heap, mainly as they do not generally vote in any great numbers. Frankly, I don't blame them for not voting for anyone.
But by withdrawing from the EU UKIP would restrict opportunities still further. No Erasmus programme, no right to settle and start up abroad, the list goes on!
But by withdrawing from the EU UKIP would restrict opportunities still further. No Erasmus programme, no right to settle and start up abroad, the list goes on!
What is stopping people today from moving to the EU then. The actual numbers of Brits moving and working in the Eurozone are pitiful. Surely there must be Brits wanting to work in a Bulgarian car wash for 47p an hour.
I used to live in South Islington/ North Shoreditch where notorious neo-nazi and BNP founder John Tyndall stood for election (thankfully well before my time).
I spoke to a retired policeman who told me that in the old days some parts were too dangerous to be patrolled by police even in daylight - the old days being the 70s.
Nowadays the area certainly does still have its problems but as I said it is largely harmonious and people of all backgrounds for tge most part go about their lives peacefully.
The likes of BNP/Ukip/Tyndall there seem just a bad dream - proof that multi culturalism and immigration have worked towards immense good.
It must have been a dream seeing as it was well before your time, the retired copper bit, well that's just hearsay isn't it - or even made up.
I didn't need your permission to do so, but thanks all the same.
It works both ways, but I don't see many people complaining when their preferred party MP gets into office using the same principle.
I'm not complaining about it. I'm simply pointing out that it's rash to draw too many conclusions from the outcome of what is, at least according to the polling data we have, to all intents and purposes a three-way marginal.
It must have been a dream seeing as it was well before your time, the retired copper bit, well that's just hearsay isn't it - or even made up.
It's bunkem. My mums side of the family lived in Haggerston Road which is just off Shoreditch High Street from the 30's through to the 90's and they never once mentioned this. My Dad's family was a bit further east and they never had this problem either.
It's bunkem. My mums side of the family lived in Haggerston Road which is just off Shoreditch High Street from the 30's through to the 90's and they never once mentioned this. My Dad's family was a bit further east and they never had this problem either.
Is it now? Do you claim the area has not changed for the better since the 60s ? I note that both Mr Tyndall and Mr Mosley stood for Parliament in Shoreditch. Just some coincidence right? I do think they would choose a likelier battleground today.
It must have been a dream seeing as it was well before your time, the retired copper bit, well that's just hearsay isn't it - or even made up.
Not that you would know any better obviously.
Apparently the area around Angel (Islington) used to be run down and downright dangerous. Well it is no longer run down. And it is cosmopolitan with lots of immigrants from the EU and all round the world. Another coincidence I am sure.
I'll take my own experiences with multiple people over some random retired police officer if it's all the same. Nobody ever spoke about no go areas in the nighttime, let alone during the day as you claim, and nobody mentioned NF marches once. We lived in Bethnal Green since the 60's and it's worse now than it was then. Just a coincidence I'm sure.
Is it now? Do you claim the area has not changed for the better since the 60s ? I note that both Mr Tyndall and Mr Mosley stood for Parliament in Shoreditch. Just some coincidence right? I do think they would choose a likelier battleground today.
What was it like before the sixties, how's it changed and what changed it?
1.What is stopping people today from moving to the EU then. The actual numbers of Brits moving and working in the Eurozone are pitiful.
2.Surely there must be Brits wanting to work in a Bulgarian car wash for 47p an hour.
1. There are around 2m British people living in the EU , about the same as the number of EU citizens here https://euobserver.com/social/123066
That's a fair number of people wouldn't you say?
2. We do have a higher wage economy than Eastern Europe, no doubt about it. Is car washing in Bulgaria the best young British people can hope for abroad in your view ? As I said: Ukip seems to have nothing to offer.
I used to live in South Islington/ North Shoreditch where notorious neo-nazi and BNP founder John Tyndall stood for election (thankfully well before my time).
I spoke to a retired policeman who told me that in the old days some parts were too dangerous to be patrolled by police even in daylight - the old days being the 70s.
Nowadays the area certainly does still have its problems but as I said it is largely harmonious and people of all backgrounds for tge most part go about their lives peacefully.
The likes of BNP/Ukip/Tyndall there seem just a bad dream - proof that multi culturalism and immigration have worked towards immense good.
You obviously do not believe in democracy, when were the british people asked if they wanted multiculturalism and mass immigration? In which political manifesto?
No reasonable person would oppose sensible controlled immigration, what we have seen is an opening of the floodgates.
I'm sure you will find plenty of support for your views in Rotherham, Rochdale, Bristol and other areas where serious sexual offences have been committed on a large scale.
1. There are around 2m British people living in the EU , about the same as the number of EU citizens here https://euobserver.com/social/123066
That's a fair number of people wouldn't you say?
2. We do have a higher wage economy than Eastern Europe, no doubt about it. Is car washing in Bulgaria the best young British people can hope for abroad in your view ? As I said: Ukip seems to have nothing to offer.
The link supplies false information. By not being registered in another country you will almost certainly forfeit rights to the services, including free healthcare.
The number of pensioners will have been based on those drawing a UK state pension, the reality is there are thousands retired to these countries who aren't of state pensionable age but still choose to retire.
What was it like before the sixties, how's it changed and what changed it?
The fact that the likes of Messrs. Mosley/Tyndall etc would be very unlikely to choose to stand for Parliament in Shoreditch nowadays, must surely prove that things have changed, and (most would agree) changed for the better.
The area is multicultural/cosmopolitan/heavily populated with immigrants, and should therefore be seething with community tensions (according to the UKIP songbook), yet it is not. Explain that?
The fact that the likes of Messrs. Mosley/Tyndall etc would be very unlikely to choose to stand for Parliament in Shoreditch nowadays, must surely prove that things have changed, and (most would agree) changed for the better.
The area is multicultural/cosmopolitan/heavily populated with immigrants, and should therefore be seething with community tensions (according to the UKIP songbook), yet it is not. Explain that?
Come on, we can all see the signs of obfuscation, what are your answers to my questions? If you don't know, just say.
Apparently the area around Angel (Islington) used to be run down and downright dangerous. Well it is no longer run down. And it is cosmopolitan with lots of immigrants from the EU and all round the world. Another coincidence I am sure.
So is Islington the area you had in mind when you claimed that it had 'undiluted benefits from immigration.'?
He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.
But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.
................................................................................................ "Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.
"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland."
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.
"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.
"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."
No contempt for democracy or the electorate at all then.
Anyone who actually bothers to read that Guardian article (the clue is in the "G" word) will quickly realise that there was no "victory party". All it does is list, in the most jaundiced, spiteful way they could manage, his campaigning efforts. There is no suggestion of "celebration", and no suggestion of taking anyone or anything for granted, and no suggestion of "contempt for democracy".
He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.
But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.
................................................................................................ "Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.
"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland."
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.
"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.
"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."
There you have it in black and white.
Along with Blair's antics in Iraq, it's the reason I would never vote for Labour.
Comments
Blame the voting system then. It works both ways, but I don't see many people complaining when their preferred party MP gets into office using the same principle.
So for the second time of asking , what is UKIP actually offering young people? Can't see much in their manifesto apart from some bromide about tuition fees!
What are any of the other parties offering young people? I hear a lot about "hard working families" but not much else. Both Labour and the Tories have already consigned them to the political scrap heap, mainly as they do not generally vote in any great numbers. Frankly, I don't blame them for not voting for anyone.
But by withdrawing from the EU UKIP would restrict opportunities still further. No Erasmus programme, no right to settle and start up abroad, the list goes on!
What is stopping people today from moving to the EU then. The actual numbers of Brits moving and working in the Eurozone are pitiful. Surely there must be Brits wanting to work in a Bulgarian car wash for 47p an hour.
It must have been a dream seeing as it was well before your time, the retired copper bit, well that's just hearsay isn't it - or even made up.
I didn't need your permission to do so, but thanks all the same.
I'm not complaining about it. I'm simply pointing out that it's rash to draw too many conclusions from the outcome of what is, at least according to the polling data we have, to all intents and purposes a three-way marginal.
It's bunkem. My mums side of the family lived in Haggerston Road which is just off Shoreditch High Street from the 30's through to the 90's and they never once mentioned this. My Dad's family was a bit further east and they never had this problem either.
Is it now? Do you claim the area has not changed for the better since the 60s ? I note that both Mr Tyndall and Mr Mosley stood for Parliament in Shoreditch. Just some coincidence right? I do think they would choose a likelier battleground today.
Not that you would know any better obviously.
Apparently the area around Angel (Islington) used to be run down and downright dangerous. Well it is no longer run down. And it is cosmopolitan with lots of immigrants from the EU and all round the world. Another coincidence I am sure.
What was it like before the sixties, how's it changed and what changed it?
1. There are around 2m British people living in the EU , about the same as the number of EU citizens here https://euobserver.com/social/123066
That's a fair number of people wouldn't you say?
2. We do have a higher wage economy than Eastern Europe, no doubt about it. Is car washing in Bulgaria the best young British people can hope for abroad in your view ? As I said: Ukip seems to have nothing to offer.
You obviously do not believe in democracy, when were the british people asked if they wanted multiculturalism and mass immigration? In which political manifesto?
No reasonable person would oppose sensible controlled immigration, what we have seen is an opening of the floodgates.
I'm sure you will find plenty of support for your views in Rotherham, Rochdale, Bristol and other areas where serious sexual offences have been committed on a large scale.
The link supplies false information. By not being registered in another country you will almost certainly forfeit rights to the services, including free healthcare.
The number of pensioners will have been based on those drawing a UK state pension, the reality is there are thousands retired to these countries who aren't of state pensionable age but still choose to retire.
The fact that the likes of Messrs. Mosley/Tyndall etc would be very unlikely to choose to stand for Parliament in Shoreditch nowadays, must surely prove that things have changed, and (most would agree) changed for the better.
The area is multicultural/cosmopolitan/heavily populated with immigrants, and should therefore be seething with community tensions (according to the UKIP songbook), yet it is not. Explain that?
These are figures supplied by the Government to Parliament !
Come on, we can all see the signs of obfuscation, what are your answers to my questions? If you don't know, just say.
So is Islington the area you had in mind when you claimed that it had 'undiluted benefits from immigration.'?
The contributor never answered my point about democracy either!
Let's not forget
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
" In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a "driving political purpose" behind immigration policy.
He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.
But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.
................................................................................................
"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.
"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland."
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.
"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.
"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."
There you have it in black and white.
Anyone who actually bothers to read that Guardian article (the clue is in the "G" word) will quickly realise that there was no "victory party". All it does is list, in the most jaundiced, spiteful way they could manage, his campaigning efforts. There is no suggestion of "celebration", and no suggestion of taking anyone or anything for granted, and no suggestion of "contempt for democracy".
But then, you already know that.
And I've correctly explained why they're bollux.
A more pointless argument is difficult to imagine.
Along with Blair's antics in Iraq, it's the reason I would never vote for Labour.