UKIP Win First Elected Westminster MP

[make total destroy]

You have every right to express anti-immigration views in public, and you have every right to be mashed into the pavement for expressing those views in a public space.

[am30]

You have every right to express anti-immigration views in public, and you have every right to be mashed into the pavement for expressing those views in a public space.

 

No one has expressed any anti-immigration views. You need to learn the difference between wanting proper immigration controls (like Australia for example) and being anti-immigration. Come back when you've done that.

[Smith John]

You have every right to express anti-immigration views in public, and you have every right to be mashed into the pavement for expressing those views in a public space.

Advocating violence? I'm sure your friends over there at the so-called, convenience-to-suit-agenda Unite Against Facism crew will welcome you with open arms.

[sivispacem]

Would you please point me to the UKIP policy governing "proper immigration controls" then? I mean, they have a vague allusion to "ending open door immigration policies" but then again I'm not stupid enough to be swayed by the idea that open door immigration policies actually exist in the first place so that kind of rhetoric has no effect on me. In terms of concrete policies? Nada.

 

They're very vocal about the "menace" of EU immigration: their policies toward that are somewhat more coherent (read: actually exist). But they're still based on nothing more than a combination of an appeal to fear and jingoism. First they'll tell you that the free movement of labour means that foreign citizens (ooh, scary) are displacing British jobs. This simply isn't true; every single academic study on the subject highlights EU immigration as a net job creator. EU membership creates more jobs than it costs in unrestricted immigration and that's an indisputable fact. Even if it wasn't, anyone who addresses the merits of overseas labour (and that's as a general concept, not just in reference to EU immigration) on a solely nationalistic basis is an idiot. Personally I couldn't give a f*ck whether my builder is from Portsmouth or Poland as long as they do a decent job. Similarly, a large proportion of my colleagues aren't British citizens. Why is that? Because there's a massive of skilled labour in the industry in which I work. Now, UKIP like to pretend that many roles can be filled with domestic labour but that's because they're by and large delusional f*ckwits who've never worked a day in their lives. If I could pull born-and-bred British intelligence analysts with 3-5 years experience, a grounding in communications and electronic security and master's degrees out of my arse I gladly would but until such a time as my rectum can produce highly qualified professionals the business in which I work will be reliant of foreign labour and I resent the suggestion than some deluded little bigot can restrict our ability to operate prosperously and effectively just because he's got a chip on his shoulder about how many brown people there are in this country.

 

Then there are the invariable claims that immigration costs X in hospital expenditure and Y in benefits. Both are, like pretty much everything that comes from UKIP, utter sh*t. Immigrants cost the NHS less per capita than domestic citizens. Immigrants cost less per capita in benefits than domestic citizens. From a cost-benefit perspective, we'd be far better displacing all the feckless white British citizens- conveniently a sizeable proportion of UKIP's voter base. But apparent I'm "un-British" because I care more about facts and empiricism than I do about the notion British citizens are more important than any other Europeans by some simple virtue of being born on a small, overcrowded isle that seems content to cling to the dying legacy of a borderline ancient empire rather than involving itself as one of the most powerful states in the largest economic and strategic bloc in the world.

[make total destroy]

 

You have every right to express anti-immigration views in public, and you have every right to be mashed into the pavement for expressing those views in a public space.

Advocating violence? I'm sure your friends over there at the so-called, convenience-to-suit-agenda Unite Against Facism crew will welcome you with open arms.

 

UAF is a joke. Fascism must be confronted with violence.

Edited October 10, 2014 by ShootPeopleNotDope

[BRITLAND]

I just found this

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2014/04/ukip-460x215.jpg

 

Turns out UKIP hate elephants

[Mr Rabbit]

Sad to see that the uk equivalent of the nazi party is getting power

No where near mate, that's the BNP if anything.

 

I just found this

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2014/04/ukip-460x215.jpg

 

Turns out UKIP hate elephants

The bastards! this is unforgivable!

Edited October 10, 2014 by Flynny

[BRITLAND]

 

I just found this

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2014/04/ukip-460x215.jpg

 

Turns out UKIP hate elephants

 

The bastards! this is unforgivable!

I know:

 

Utter

Kunts

In

Parilament

Edited October 10, 2014 by BRITLAND

[161isaiah161]

UKIP is the way forward for the UK. A party in British politics that actually has a pair of balls and says the things that the silent majority think would actually help the UK prosper. Much like the Conservatives did in the 80's.

If you consider pulling Britain out of the eu (therefore removing the eu stance on things like pollution or human rights) and stopping immigrants from doing the jobs you don't want to do a way forward for the uk then you might want to think about that

 

Also ukip has not got the balls to say anything that the "silent majority" doesn't not say as 80% of things is garbage that he will never do as he is a politician and all politicians are liars (as opposed for other 20% that is drunken swear words like any other leaders in far right groups *cough* English defence league *cough*)

[Captain VXR]

"Bigot" this, "bigot" that...this is exactly why I'm being pushed towards backing UKIP; I have my own concerns regarding immigration levels- among other issues- so because of that, I'm effectively being slung the usual slurs by the usual kind in an attempt to somehow demonize me. Free speech is such a one-way street with these so-called (and hilariously ironic named) "progressivists". The very fact UKIP was likened to Nazism in this thread says all about those who delve to such low measures to smear them.

Maybe it's because many UKIP candidates and members have racist views, like the traitor from Somerset who was caught performing Nazi salutes? Maybe it's because UKIP councillors believe gay marriage causes flooding? Or is equal to child abuse? Or whose MEP linked to blogs containing virulent antisemitism and racism, making ridiculous accusations against Harriet Harman?

 

And so much for free speech from UKIP when they call the police on their political opponents.

 

UKIP are more like the Poujadist movement from France a few decades ago rather than being Nazis. Still a shower of imbeciles and c*nts though.

 

The amount of dirt on UKIP is staggering, spend a few minutes of your time reading through here:

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/ukip/

[GTA_stu]

I'm sure if you dig deep enough you'll find loones with extreme views associated with all political parties. UKIP is still in relative infancy and is nowhere near as established as the 3 main political parties, and it's also further right than those 3 anyways. Naturally it's going to attract a few undesirables and not be as polished as the more established parties. That doesn't delegitimise it though or what it stands for. People constantly try and smear the entire organisation as racist or bad just because it is against immigration, and has a few rough edges.

[Ai®a©ob®a]

I know nothing of British Politics but this means Cameron is no longer the PM?

[Captain VXR]

UKIP supporters in their own words

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/truth-ukip-racist-jibes-anti-gay-3558058

 

 

[Artful.]

It's pretty easy to pick out a few bad things said by a tiny amount of UKIP supporters. I don't have any doubts that Labour/Tory supporters have said things just as bad at some point but nobody cares because it's a lot easier to ridicule UKIP.

[Captain VXR]

I'm sure if you dig deep enough you'll find loones with extreme views associated with all political parties. UKIP is still in relative infancy and is nowhere near as established as the 3 main political parties, and it's also further right than those 3 anyways. Naturally it's going to attract a few undesirables and not be as polished as the more established parties. That doesn't delegitimise it though or what it stands for. People constantly try and smear the entire organisation as racist or bad just because it is against immigration, and has a few rough edges.

UKIP has a much higher loony to non loony ratio than Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, Greens etc. The only other party with MPs which has as high a % of swivel eyed loonies is Respect (George Galloway). Do you not see how an anti immigration party is going to attract all sorts of racist and xenophobic fruitcakes? Perhaps the fact that one of its founders, Alan Sked, considers it to be a party which is now filled with racist members, and accuses Farage of holding racist views legitimises such accusations?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-founder-alan-sked-party-become-frankensteins-monster

 

I know nothing of British Politics but this means Cameron is no longer the PM?

Cameron is still PM.

[Ai®a©ob®a]

 

I know nothing of British Politics but this means Cameron is no longer the PM?

Cameron is still PM.

Ohh i missread i though that said PM not MP...

 

So what is an MP? Is that like speaker of Parliament or something?

 

Sorry for the questions just wondering

[Artful.]

They aren't completely anti-immigration, they don't want to let people with no skills(and AIDs) in. If you have job skills and fulfil the points based system they want to bring in then people are more than welcome. Sure, it might attract a couple of fruitcakes but they are only the minority.

[Captain VXR]

 

 

I know nothing of British Politics but this means Cameron is no longer the PM?

Cameron is still PM.

Ohh i missread i though that said PM not MP...

 

So what is an MP? Is that like speaker of Parliament or something?

 

Sorry for the questions just wondering

 

MP is someone who represents a constituency, like a member of the House of Representatives in the USA.

 

They aren't completely anti-immigration, they don't want to let people with no skills(and AIDs) in. If you have job skills and fulfil the points based system they want to bring in then people are more than welcome. Sure, it might attract a couple of fruitcakes but they are only the minority.

Stopping people with AIDS coming makes it worse, as they hide their condition and are wary of seeking medical help. Which is why the USA, a very hard country to legally emigrate to, reversed its ban 2 years ago. Also, many of the lower skilled EU migrants are doing the jobs nobody else wants to do like cleaning hospitals and picking onions, so it's not like they're depriving low skilled British unemployed people of work. I'm sure Sivispacem has access to study after study showing that current EU migration to the UK is of net gain to our economy.

[GTA_stu]

Do you not see how an anti immigration party is going to attract all sorts of racist and xenophobic fruitcakes?

 

Only because the issue of anti-immigration has been unjustly neglected by the establishment as a legitimate political issue, even though it is something that a very large portion of the population supports. So when a party comes along that actually is against immigration and enjoys some success, everyone along that broad spectrum is going to support them. Obviously you're going to get some extremists.

[Captain VXR]

 

Do you not see how an anti immigration party is going to attract all sorts of racist and xenophobic fruitcakes?

 

Only because the issue of anti-immigration has been unjustly neglected by the establishment as a legitimate political issue, even though it is something that a very large portion of the population supports. So when a party comes along that actually is against immigration and enjoys some success, everyone along that broad spectrum is going to support them. Obviously you're going to get some extremists.

 

I seem to remember the Tories making a big deal of immigration at the last election, spouting crap about how much they were going it lower it by... Immigration will always be used as an issue by both conservative and far right parties, UKIP has not brought anything new to the table, perhaps except bridging a gap between the Tories and the BNP.

[sivispacem]

 

 

Do you not see how an anti immigration party is going to attract all sorts of racist and xenophobic fruitcakes?

Only because the issue of anti-immigration has been unjustly neglected by the establishment as a legitimate political issue, even though it is something that a very large portion of the population supports. So when a party comes along that actually is against immigration and enjoys some success, everyone along that broad spectrum is going to support them. Obviously you're going to get some extremists.

 

I seem to remember the Tories making a big deal of immigration at the last election, spouting crap about how much they were going it lower it by... Immigration will always be used as an issue by both conservative and far right parties, UKIP has not brought anything new to the table, perhaps except bridging a gap between the Tories and the BNP.

 

Every party that has emphasised immigration questions over economics, social policy or, y'know, any other stuff people actually really care about, at the time of a general election hast lost. From my perspective, there are only going to be two possible courses of action at the next election. One, people still don't care about immigration and won't vote for UKIP, who are after all basically still a single-issue party. Or the amount of utterly senseless, usually baseless rhetoric spouted primarily by the right-wing gutter press has indoctrinated enough people into thinking immigration is actually an issue, in which case we're all screwed and I'm moving to Australia along with just about anyone else with half a brain.

 

Immigration has generally failed to capture people's imagination as a general election issue because policy towards it doesn't really have that much impact on anyone's daily life. Unless you work for the Border Force, that is. I put to any individual suggesting that UKIP have some valid arguments regarding immigration the following: can you provide one single, concrete and factual example of an instance in which current immigration policy (which I'll bet most of you don't even know the first thing about) has negatively impacted you or anyone you know? If you can't answer that question, then ask yourself why you're voting for a party whose primary legislative focus is to change something that doesn't actually affect your life? Because, when it boils down to it, I don't think people vote for UKIP because they actually have strong feelings on the issue of immigration. People vote for UKIP either as a protest, or because they have discriminatory and derogatory views towards foreign people.

 

 

I don't have any doubts that Labour/Tory supporters have said things just as bad at some point but nobody cares because it's a lot easier to ridicule UKIP.

They're a lot easier to ridicule because they have a lot more oddballs, nutters, closet racists and idiots affiliated with them. What their supporters paint as an underhand smear campaign, people endowed with rationality and sense tend to see this kind of thing for what it really is. Intelligent people don't tend to see their views as compelling; that's a simple fact.

[Captain VXR]

sivispacem I'm with you except the moving to Australia thing. Too many right wing bigots for my choice, an awful PM and too many huge spiders etc. USA or Canada is more my style, although New Zealand looks decent as well.

 

I do like how Nigel Farage admits the 2010 manifesto was batsh*t insane, even though he had been in charge of the party for years in advance

[GTA_stu]

I put to any individual suggesting that UKIP have some valid arguments regarding immigration the following: can you provide one single, concrete and factual example of an instance in which current immigration policy (which I'll bet most of you don't even know the first thing about) has negatively impacted you or anyone you know? If you can't answer that question, then ask yourself why you're voting for a party whose primary legislative focus is to change something that doesn't actually affect your life?

 

How about the labour market being saturated with foreign workers who'll work for less money, thereby driving down wages and providing fewer jobs for British people? Hasn't affected me personally but I know of friends who have trouble finding enough trades work. Or how about my country becoming increasingly less British and much more foreign? That does affect me personally.

 

It shouldn't make any difference though how much an issue personally affects you or people you know. Look at how many people are opposed to certain wars and how passionately, even though they may have virtually no affect on their lives whatsoever. The Iraq war is a great example where you had millions of people marching against it even though it would have little to no negative impact on their lives. People are a bit more complex than to care only about issues which affect them personally. Immigration in particular is a much wider issue than that. People do care about how much immigration affects them personally, e.g. on a financial level. But it's also much more than that, it's about the country and British society in general.

[Mark]

I was thinking of throwing up a wall of text but sivispacem has hit my thoughts on UKIP on the head.

 

I'm actually looking forward to seeing UKIPs election manifesto because it would be about that time that most of their fan base realise their party is completely clueless on how to actually run a country.

 

As someone who works for a foreign company in the UK that relies on taxation to facilitate operation of the railway I may be biased but God forbid if they removed the foreign workers from our department, it would cripple commuter networks in a number of weeks due to loss of a large portion of skilled workers. Then again, there'd be less commuters to cater for when multinational businesses start to leave the UK, causing large swathes of job cuts and more people than ever reliant on the social system.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Mark

[sivispacem]

How about the labour market being saturated with foreign workers who'll work for less money, thereby driving down wages and providing fewer jobs for British people? Hasn't affected me personally but I know of friends who have trouble finding enough trades work. Or how about my country becoming increasingly less British and much more foreign? That does affect me personally.

The question of labour market saturation is an interesting one precisely because it seems to exist conceptually in the public psyche despite the fact there's no evidence to actually support it. I think it must be a product of the more nefarious elements of the British press because the various macroeconomic studies have shown immigration, both generally and as part of the free movement of labour in the EU, to be both a net job creator and a net wealth creator. That is to say, when taking the economy as a whole, immigration of the kind seen over the last couple of decades neither reduces the number of jobs available to British citizens nor results in wage suppression. There's not even a loose correlation; average wages have tended to rise faster and the numbers of people out of work drop by greater proportions in quarters where recorded immigration was higher. Then again, that's probably as much an effect of the former two points than a cause but still, if there's no basic correlation you can't even pretend that a causal lunk exists.

 

I'm sure there are some sectors of the economy- primarily the low-skilled labour sector- where foreign citizens do displace prospective British employees but they aren't representative of the wider economy, and there are numerous sectors which, as Mark pointed out, cannot function properly without substantial foreign labour purely because of the lack of skilled or trained domestic employees, or more simply the lack of interest amongst domestic employees. The most obvious example is CAD machinists; wages have inflated by something like 50% because of additional investment in high tech manufacturing in the UK but the almost complete absence of any organisations providing training in the industry (thanks to the false notion that British manufacturing is dead) means most of the labour force is foreign. And, quite frankly, as long as the economy as a whole functions better with current immigration policies, I don't think that some sector-specific small-scale displacement is too high a price to pay for a general improvement in wages and employment, do you? It wouldn't really be a problem if our educational and employment support systems were vaguely manoeuvrable or staffed by vaguely competent individuals like they are elsewhere in Europe, as then we would actually have the agility to support people to employ their skills elsewhere in the job market rather than letting them sit on JSA because they don't know what sectors someone's basic skills would be applicable to.

 

The question of "losing British heritage" is a very subjective one. I mean, I get the idea that some people are concerned about the erosion of British values and heritage but then again the kinds of people who complain about this tend to have a very...shall we say "archaic" notion of what constitutes British values and heritage. Personally I'm of the view that British heritage is largely defined by mass migration and has been for well over a century. In my view, most of the second and third generation Indian families in the UK have a greater affinity with contemporary British values than the white working class people who tend to lament the disappearance of such values. I'd probably say the same about Eastern European immigrants too. But yeah, very subjective and I think you'd have to ask yourself what you consider "British" to mean and how you think immigration is diluting that.

 

It shouldn't make any difference though how much an issue personally affects you or people you know.

I couldn't disagree more. The Iraq War question is very different in my view; that's one of morality, questioning the actions of government on overseas issues that offend one's personal ethical values is entirely reasonable and sensible. But there's no real moral argument against immigration- well, not any I can think of. I'd also argue that the war on Iraq has had a much larger impact on British political, social and economic culture- both foreign and domestic than immigration policy.

 

I don't see why someone's preconceived notions on an issue that doesn't really directly affect them should guided policy when the facts of the matter are fairly clear and contradict that view. Why should what is, to be frank, nothing more than prejudice for most people in this instance, dictate policy, especially at what is likely a substantial negative impact to the detriment of all? Merely having a strongly formed opinion on a subject doesn't mean that opinion is valid and nor should weight of public opinion on a subject dictate policy if there's a reasonable argument that that weight of opinion is ill-informed or simply factually incorrect. Case in point- Islam. The views of what is gradually becoming a very loud majority (in terms of voiced opinions anyway) can quite reasonably be ignored in my opinion because the people voicing those views don't have the first clue what they're talking about. People are entitled to whatever opinions they want but those opinions shouldn't dictate policy if they're irrational, unreasonable and quite possibly bigoted. Europeans have scapegoated minorities for domestic issues quite a few times over the last century. It seldom ends well.

[Zondar]

I may well be wrong with this one, but I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that there are as many(if not more) Brits living in other EU countries as there are non-British Europeans living in the UK?

 

I remember this tickling me at the height of the press scares regarding the tidal wave of Bulgarian criminal gangs that was about to hit us.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2014 by KnobCheez

[sivispacem]

There are certainly more British expatriates in Spain than there are Spanish citizens in the UK, for example. Think the same is true of France too.

[BRITLAND]

There are certainly more British expatriates in Spain than there are Spanish citizens in the UK, for example. Think the same is true of France too.

Defo Spain & Portugal, not sure about France

[GTA_stu]

There's a massive difference though between wealthy old codgers going somewhere with a similar economy to retire, and poor unskilled labourers going to a much richer country.

[sivispacem]

There's a massive difference though between wealthy old codgers going somewhere with a similar economy to retire, and poor unskilled labourers going to a much richer country.

Why?

 

The old codger has a cost when it comes to services provided from government coffers such as healthcare. Pretty much all of Europe is made up of classic developed economies, even the "poor" bits. As I've already pointed out, worker displacement and wage reductions due to immigration are by and large mythical. Many EU immigrants have lower benefit entitlements and restrictions on claiming; even where they are entitled and do claim, it's statistically much lower amounts than domestic citizens.

 

In terms of cost-to-income ratio middle-class retired individuals come out worse than most immigrants, almost purely by virtue if their age, so would you kindly explain what apparent difference there are that you're referring to?