On 19 Nov 2014 at 6:28pm UKRAP wrote:
UKIP to deport foreigners,except for Farage`s wife I presume?
On 19 Nov 2014 at 8:15pm skeptical green wrote:
UKIP relies for votes on 2 groups of people. 1) closet racists to whom it is a more acceptable party to support because they feel that really it's leaders agree with their xenophobic immigrant hating views and are toning it down for the media or 2) people looking for a way to express their general feeling that politicians do not talk their language or understand the struggles of their lives but either don't understand through lack of education or don't want to think about what kind of society UKIP leaders aspire to and what policies they would push for if given any power. These are the people who say well i'm going to vote for UKIP because I don't trust the others any more.
On 19 Nov 2014 at 11:20pm Old Bloke wrote:
There are some truly awful people on here.
On 20 Nov 2014 at 12:51am Peoples Soldier wrote:
Can you be any more patronising sg???
And you wonder why UKIP are so popular
It's the perfect storm for UKIP, Lib Dems dead and buried. Tory party no longer exists except in parody. Labour unelectable under Milliband, can't even eat a bacon sandwich without looking ridiculous. Which leaves UKIP: Populist policies, charasmatic leader, something new.
On 20 Nov 2014 at 4:14am Love a Duck. wrote:
Char A smatic soldier,you foreign or something?
On 20 Nov 2014 at 10:57am Old Bloke wrote:
@Peoples Soldier - thanks for injecting some good old down to earth common sense on to this chatter board
On 20 Nov 2014 at 11:47am Rods Tiger wrote:
Peoples Soldier - If I may correct your statement. "can't even eat a bacon sandwich without being portrayed by the tory media as looking ridiculous". I don't believe that you are as naive as you pretend.
On 20 Nov 2014 at 12:20pm Southover Queen wrote:
The curious thing about discussing UKIP policies is that the moment you try to analyse them (and the versions put forward by their representatives, such as Mark Reckless) is that anything vaguely critical - or even just objectively pointing out the inherent contradictions - is immediately jumped on as being "patronising". I'm sure this post will suffer the same fate. The thing about this approach is that it allows UKippers to duck the actual arguments, which is useful because UKIP policies are generally incoherent and completely ignore the political realities.
I don't think it's patronising to put forward the counterarguments and expect/hope for a response which addresses those objections. But UKippers never do: they just bang on about "populist policies" and how "Guardianistas" have it in for them.
So come on: explain why skeptical green is wrong, without ad hominem attacks and insults. Let's have some reasons for your opinions.
On 20 Nov 2014 at 12:41pm Deelite 2 wrote:
Good post SQ. 'Skeptical green' has nailed the two main reasons I suspect people are attracted to UKIP. I too would be interested to hear reasoned responses from UKIPers as to what they feel attracts them to the party.
On 20 Nov 2014 at 12:53pm Slarty wrote:
So UKIP want to bring in a point scoring system for immigration and this is one of the points that make them racist? What about Australia?
UKIP want to deport ILLEGAL immigrants. Err, they are illegally here and it has to be better than locking them up.
The problem is that many people see lack of jobs, over priced housing and building on green spaces, to mention a few problems, all a result of the country being overpopulated and our membership in Europe (before the myopic arguments like losing our customs etc). Easiest option to reduce the crowding is to stop the immigration. Under recent country leadership, even suggesting such a thing makes you a racist - which I don't think it really is, but say something like "I think all illegal immigrants should be sent home" and you will be branded racist by more than a few. If wanting illegal activities stopped is considered wrong by the other parties then perhaps I should consider voting voting for UKIP.
Perhaps if one of the other parties would pick up on the reasons why UKIP are becoming popular and either address the problem themselves or explain why it is not a problem then they might get the votes being taken by UKIP - but they dont/wont/cant!!! I know a couple of people of people that were put off voting UKIP because of being accused of being a closet racist but if they think that the best thing for the country is to come out of Europe and control immigration (and neither of those are racist) then they are left with one party to vote for - UKIP.
BTW, I'm not a UKIP voter, but I can see why they appeal to people (people that only hear the headline grabbing policies and not the other weaker policies (AKA rubbish) that also goes with UKIP).
On 20 Nov 2014 at 1:37pm Southover Queen wrote:
Slarty, Mark Reckless said that he was in favour of deporting people who migrated to Britain perfectly legally. It was all over the news yesterday, and featured the now familiar sight of Farage insisting that yet another candidate/representative had got it wrong/been misinterpreted/was very tired.
I think you're right, and those are some of the reasons that people vote UKIP, in spite of the actual provable economic facts about EU migration such as the net benefits of active taxpayers, negligible "benefit tourism", increased productivity etc etc. There is pressure on housing, but that's at least as much because we, as a country, have not been building enough. Building on green space? That's because it's far cheaper than building on brown sites.
Immigration is a really easy target and UKIP would have people believe it underlies all the ills of this country. It doesn't.
PS: No-one seems to have considered that if the UK leaves the EU all those pensioners in Spain and France might want to return (no reciprocal health agreements any more and perhaps problems getting pensions paid too) - there's over a million of them in Spain alone. Where are they all going to go? It just isn't quite that simple, and UKIP never ever addresses any of it...
On 20 Nov 2014 at 3:32pm Slarty wrote:
SQ, sorry I hadn't caught up with the news when I first posted. Unfortunately, in any group you will find racism and I'm still not sure that wanting people to leave the UK if they are not British born and bred is racist (although I will agree it leans that way).
Politicians (mostly) just play a game to get the votes. Seems UKIP is playing the game very well. The Tories may want everyone to be taxed at the same percentage, but they wont do it because they wont get in to power. Likewise, Labour may want the top 10% earners paying 50% of the tax, but again they wont do it because it will mean they will be out of power. Striking the balance between your ideals and what will get you power is the important thing.
I think many politicians have thought about your PS, but why would UKIP (and possibly the others) bring that to everyone's attention?
On 20 Nov 2014 at 4:30pm M wrote:
It shows how sour politics have gone when it takes the Confederation of British Industry to inject some sense from a liberal perspective into the immigration debate. Over 60% of CBI embers say that immigration has benefited their company. Only 3% believe it has hurt their company. Immigration is a tremendous boon to the British economy. Without it we would be deep in recession. Nor is it in the least responsible for the growing wealth gap. The period of highest immigration into the UK coincided with the period when social mobility and social equality were making the most progress.
That people still fall for the old con-trick astonishes me. Donít blame Britainís 100 billionaires, multi millionaire bankers or grasping landlords for your poverty Ė look! blame that foreign-looking poor man over there. He is eating a bit of cheese. He has taken that cheese from the mouths of your children!
Farage is as an ex investment banker and he and Ukip will ruin this country and anything good about it for ordinary people. Farage has gone on record as saying "I genuinely do think, when you... occasionally hear of a big businessman that says he'd like to run the National Health Service and streamline it, and get better value for money, I think that's the approach we've got to take." Ukip supports the opening up of the health and education sectors to private US investors.
I'm sure there are better options for a protest vote than these corrupt cretins.
On 20 Nov 2014 at 5:17pm P. C wrote:
U K I P great got my vote
On 20 Nov 2014 at 5:48pm skeptical green wrote:
Glad I started a debate, but disappointed that UKIP supporters are not prepared to defend their policies on anything other than immigration and leaving the EU. Their health policy changes daily with some spokespeople sounding like it is similar to labour and others writing pamphlets suggesting US style insurance. Where do they stand on Education, on tax, on the relationship between local and central Government and on all the other pressing problems of UK governance? The problem is, as no doubt Rochester will show tonight, since Labour decided not to be a participatory party drawing it's policies from local wards and trade Union branches and as New Labour' to adopt a 'lite' version of monetarist economics, many voters are projecting all their hopes, dreams and desires for change onto this populist but dishonest bunch. Demagogues like Farage only gain traction when mainstream parties fail to connect with the electorate.
On 20 Nov 2014 at 9:32pm ex Banker wrote:
I am not taking sides here, but M seems to have missed the very point he is making. Big Business/ Torys supports immigration as it helps keep down wage inflation.
Obviously, if a business needs to employ people; they can offer a local lad a good salary, of a (desperate) foreign worker much less. This, therefore, allows the rich to get richer.
M makes the old mistake of correlation/ causation.
"M" states, "The period of highest immigration into the UK coincided with the period when social mobility and social equality were making the most progress."
Just because there is a correlation in the data, it does not mean that was the CAUSE. It could have been economic boom that caused the immigration or, on a small scale; a new business opening.
If the businesses exists BECAUSE of cheap labour (where the employee is still on benefits) it isn't valid. That means the taxpayer is stuffing money into the business owner. It is not a valid business.
But worse, Bankers and the politicians should take the blame. In a capitalist society, banks lend money. If they do so responsibly they make money. If they don't, the loans go into default and get sold to a collector for 1/2 price. The "defaultee" is given the option to pay £5k instead of £10 and they pay it; happily! Instead, the taxpayer is backing the banker to continually screw the "defaulter".
Labour screwed up capitalism, Torys went along for the ride.
Not sure what UKIP would do.
On 21 Nov 2014 at 10:06am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Slarty's contention that illegal immigrants should be deported is a good example of how UKIP hijack the facts. Illegal immigrants, overstayers and those breaching the terms of their visas are deported on a daily basis. The difficulty in doing that is that by virtue of their illegal status, many are under the radar and therefore don't come to the attention of the authorities easily.
The biggest problem facing the other parties is that UKIP arguments regarding immigration are simple, and the opposing arguments are more complex and not easily reduced to headline-grabbing soundbites. UKIP are gaining ground because there is so little to choose between the other parties: none of them have a good record on the economy, the Lib Dems have shot themselves in the collective foot by hanging on the Tories' coat-tails and the Labour party, by agreeing to stick to Tory spending levels offers pretty much more of the same, at least initially.
Meanwhile, families are homeless, the NHS is collapsing, people are dependent on food banks, half of the taxpayer's money that is spent on housing goes straight into the pockets of private landlords and anyone on an average income is likely to be struggling to pay their bills.
None of the parties are really addressing this, but UKIP purport to be and some people fall for it.
On 21 Nov 2014 at 1:16pm Voter wrote:
and we now know that in the (hopefully completely unlikely ) event of UKIP being able to get power in a Coalition Deal, Norman Baker might enable that and join in so that he could try and make sure their policies were less bad.
On 7 Dec 2014 at 5:17pm Mrs.F wrote:
Thats the thing, some people (skeptical green, southover queen and deelite 2) are releasing statements on here which with their knowing or not, are extremely condescending. Deelite 2 wrote: 'skeptical green' has nailed the two main reasons i suspect people are attracted to UKIP. Do you honestly not see how patronising this is? People in Lewes love to follow the crowd and jump on the UKIP hating bandwaggon....
On 7 Dec 2014 at 8:36pm Southover Queen wrote:
Thank you for proving my point, Mrs F. It's very hard to avoid the "patronising/condescending" accusation, because in the end UKIP is peddling nonsense and you're swallowing it. If that's condescending, we're a bit stuck. So be it.
Rather than tell me I'm being "condescending", how about offering reasoned, factual and verified counter-arguments?
I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon (and frankly I think it's a bit patronising of you to assume that I can't think for myself). I don't agree with Farage and his followers, and I have plenty of factual, fact-checked, reasoned arguments to say why I hold that position. Produce yours then.