[666maslo666]

You do realise that an immigration cap of 50,000 would effectively destroy the NHS given that India alone provides us with 18,000 doctors, right?

And that's before we get into the effects of the other policies.

You are comparing apples and oranges here, it is not 18,000 Indian doctors per year, but 18,000 in total. It wouldnt destroy the NHS at all. But I do admit it is a pretty strict limit, Id prefer a higher number and it could harm the economy. Still, with a ban on unskilled immigration and a points based system, those 50,000 would all be skilled workers such as doctors, which is where the main economic gains of immigration are anyway.

[Phantom Hoover]

I don't know about the UK as a whole, but in Scotland we have an imminent demographic crisis if we can't get more young, productive people immigrating to counterbalance the ageing population and falling birthrates. I don't really want to see my home wither because a segment of the English populace can't stand the sight of people unlike themselves.

[karajorma]

I'm glad that you have preemptively decided this to be so. Really sounds very democratic of you.

Democracy is a farce and you really should know that by now. It's a ****ty system that simply produces better results than the other ****ty systems we've thought up. In the past we've had large numbers of people voting for the BNP, does that mean we should also invite them to the table?

Regarding your 18k doctors from India, are you saying that the UK are importing 18k doctors from India per year? Perhaps you were, and that was just a gaffe on your end.

Of course I wasn't saying that. If I was saying per year, I would have said per year. 18,000 from one country alone is a very large number however, even if it's taken them years to get here. As non-British natives, they are expected to jump through hoops every year just to remain in the country. Do you honestly believe that making it harder to get in (not to mention making it harder to bring spouses and dependents with them) is going to result in the same number of people coming here?

What concerns me is not any particular figure, but the perspective that, if you bring up the topic of immigration, a cloud of suspicion already hovers on your head, and perhaps you should leave that topic alone. Again, I'm not seeing anyone challenging this notion, so I guess I'm right.

Then you need to read more carefully. That has been my entire point when I said we need to take back the debate from people like UKIP. The reason that cloud appears is entirely because of who says it.

[The E]

Personally, I am comparing UKIP with Germany's AfD (Alternative für Deutschland). Both are parties that were formed because the nominally conservative party has shifted left or centrist over the years, and has thus left a void on certain issues. Both parties filled that void through being more populist, more simplistic and louder than any other and both parties had to deal with an influx of people from the actual far right.

And both parties are a complete mess. Both parties have a real problem with their representatives opening their mouths in unguarded moments and letting idiocy out. In essence, yes, it is absolutely necessary that parties exist that address these concerns. But the parties that are currently addressing these issues seem more prone than usual to corruption and incompetence (Look at UKIP's record in working in the european parliament, for example).

[karajorma]

I consider both them and the Tea Party to be a symptom of the same issue.

And I'm not denying them the right to exist, just the right to demand we listen to them rather than simply addressing the problems directly.

[Flipside]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32725167

Police investigating possible electoral fraud over Farage's seat. Now, this could mean one of two things, either this is just a set of accusations put forward by somewhat bitter UKIP members (much like the fact that the LibDem concept of proportional representation only sinks in when it bites them in the ass as well - most people didn't even bother to vote at that referendum - I'll have to sit down and work out how many seats UKIP would have if it had gone through, it might be interesting), or the conservatives have been really, really stupid. I suspect the former, but could be wrong.

[The E]

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'"

All hail Dark Lord Cameron.

[Luis Dias]

@ Karajorma

I don't think that is true. It's very easy to me to imagine the reaction of the entire media landscape if Cameron started the conversation about immigration in order to do "something about it". I have this nagging suspicion that every single time anyone speaks about immigration, they better have some background that people recognize as absolutely anti-racist (and even then...), so to shield them for the inevitable onslaught of accusations of racism and / or islamophobia and whatever. Your past will be scanned for any thoughtsin over that subject, yours and your friend's.

Personally, I don't even think that "immigration" might be "the problem". It could be that all the fears and concerns that people might have regarding that subject can be addressed in other ways. But I do think it is a taboo, that anyone who touches it is perceived as being "infected" with some xenophobic virus, and in this vein, it's all too simple to predict that increasingly only racist groups will touch it, increasing even more the stigma of it, etc. It's a kind of nefarious feedback loop, which goes against the interest of having this being "thrown back to rational people", etc. I just think this is not going to happen before all the name calling and calling out behaviors stops.

Regarding the "democracy is a fraud" thing, well, it is if the status quo keeps being in place, but ask Greece if democracy is unable to rock the boat. I'm sure that in China the word "democracy" is a kind of a joke, but I wonder if that doesn't show a tad of an inner hidden envy about this western tradition. Just like soviets used to sneer at "color tvs" or "blue jeans", etc.

[The E]

Only Nixon could go to China.

[karajorma]

I'm sure that in China the word "democracy" is a kind of a joke, but I wonder if that doesn't show a tad of an inner hidden envy about this western tradition. Just like soviets used to sneer at "color tvs" or "blue jeans", etc.

You do realise I'm not Chinese, right?


As for the rest, the reason why I'm against the UKIP having a voice is cause not only is everything they say stupid bull****, but it causes those around them to be infected by the same stupid bull****. Is there anyone on this board who really thinks Britain should leave the EU? I very much doubt that if there is, they can actually make a logical, factual case for why. UKIP preys on emotion rather than any practical notions of what actually might work. But because of them, and the numbers they were getting for their bull**** referendum on whether the UK should stick our collective dicks in a blender, we now have the tories making the same promise. So now until 2016, instead of a rational discussion on what Britain's place in Europe should be, we have a discussion which only has two outcomes, collective suicide or a MASSIVE waste of time.

And you wonder why I think we shouldn't let them speak any further?

[Luis Dias]

Only Nixon could go to China.

That line crossed my mind as well.

It's probably very very true, but the question is, are there those kinds of Nixons anymore? That picture of increased polarization of american congress is a symptom in western politics of increased balkanization. And we are seeing the fruits of it in Europe, with the increased popularization of marginal parties everywhere (curiously except for Portugal). Obama begrudgingly started a different path towards Cuba because there was 0 chance that Ted Cruz or whomever else from the GOP would ever do it. Ed Milliband didn't seem like the guy to start this conversation at all (if anything, go further with "battling islamophobia").

But yes, that is the best counterpoint to what I've been saying.

You do realise I'm not Chinese right?

I know you live there!

As for the rest, the reason why I'm against the UKIP having a voice is cause not only is everything they say stupid bull****, but it causes those around them to be infected by the same stupid bull****. Is there anyone on this board who really thinks Britain should leave the EU? I very much doubt that if there is, they can actually make a logical, factual case for why. UKIP preys on emotion rather than any practical notions of what actually might work. But because of them, and the numbers they were getting for their bull**** referendum on whether the UK should stick our collective dicks in a blender, we now have the tories making the same promise. So now until 2016, instead of a rational discussion on what Britain's place in Europe should be, we have a discussion which only has two outcomes, collective suicide or a MASSIVE waste of time.

Why are you so hard on people being euroskeptic, especially since what has happened in Europe since 2008? I think it's actually very very healthy to keep euroskeptics having a voice and criticize what is happening so that eurocrats don't get too much into groupthink (almost an impossible task at that though). If you watch Farage's speeches on european parliaments regarding the behavior of Europe, I'd say his voice was bang on, and much much needed. Is he a silly man? A buffoon? An idiot? A populist? Well, I'd say that most of european politicians are worse than Farage, for they have allowed Europe to have come to this ridiculous position that it is in, in the brink of total collapse, merely held by corruption, fear, collusion and a banking system of complete systemic control.

And you wonder why I think we shouldn't let them speak any further?

I'm always uneasy when I see people advertising their willingness to stop others from speaking.

[The E]

If you watch Farage's speeches on european parliaments regarding the behavior of Europe, I'd say his voice was bang on, and much much needed. Is he a silly man? A buffoon? An idiot? A populist? Well, I'd say that most of european politicians are worse than Farage, for they have allowed Europe to have come to this ridiculous position that it is in, in the brink of total collapse, merely held by corruption, fear, collusion and a banking system of complete systemic control.

Not that Farage was any better at being a european politician, going by his attendance record for the European Parliament and its various committees. It's one thing to be critical of EU politics and policies. It's another to be blatantly hypocritical and not doing anything to change the situation if you have the chance.

[Luis Dias]

I have no idea about Farage's competence. I am 100% skeptical of the idea that he could have done anything to stop what went wrong. He had no political power at all. Could he have written "reports" after "reports" so that the euro bureaucrats could "read them", stamp some stamps on them and proceed to ignore them? I guess so. I guess that's a way to see things. I also think that it would have been just a waste of time. The eurotrain was on automatic and there was nothing he could have done. The problems are just too big to be "solved" by an UKIP politician.

[karajorma]

I know you live there!

So? I did say that I thought that democracy was the least ****ty form of government. So I don't know why you'd even bring up the country I happen to live in. The entire argument pretty much smacks of an attempt to claim I've never lived in a democratic country and don't know what democracy is.

Why are you so hard on people being euroskeptic

Euroskeptic is one thing. To actually believe Britain should pull out of Europe requires a special kind of stupid. But go on, prove me wrong. Explain why it would be a good thing.

And you wonder why I think we shouldn't let them speak any further?

I'm always uneasy when I see people advertising their willingness to stop others from speaking.

I shouldn't have to make it clear that I simply mean that they can speak all they want, but we're equally entitled to not invite them to any serious discussion on the matter until they grow the **** up. Free speech does not mean that we have to give them a platform. I really shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.


EDIT :

I have no idea about Farage's competence.

Actually, why don't you read up on the asswipes you've spent so long defending instead of continually saying you know nothing about them.

[Luis Dias]

Why not look at another media hit job on people they despise? Well, ok, I have looked and it's a despicable hit job, something I have come now to expect from the media to do with anyone they hate themselves. The only damning thing in there is the connection with the EFD, all other **** is either circumstantial, wild extrapolations, guilt by associations, or confusing difference of opinion with bigotry (which is bigoted by itself, but what can you do, the left's ability to lack self-awareness is never surprising).

Would I vote them? Bloody not. I don't see myself represented in his party. You must be confused about my stance here, I'm not a fan of Farage here.

 

So? I did say that I thought that democracy was the least ****ty form of government.

Indeed you did and I missed it!

Why are you so hard on people being euroskeptic

Euroskeptic is one thing. To actually believe Britain should pull out of Europe requires a special kind of stupid. But go on, prove me wrong. Explain why it would be a good thing.

I'm not "euroskeptic", my dreams are of an "United States of Europe", the exact opposite of what he dreams of. Unfortunately, he was right from the get go, the present architecture of Europe is crumbling it in the most disgusting and destructive possible manner: through slow burning. It will take decades to crumble at this pace. He believes Britain (and all others) should live under their own bridges, rather than deciding to build a building and live within it. I disagree. I think the building could be amazing. Regardless of the difference between my stance and his, I think I'd rather live under the bridge than forced to live inside a building that is about to collapse.

And you wonder why I think we shouldn't let them speak any further?

I'm always uneasy when I see people advertising their willingness to stop others from speaking.

I shouldn't have to make it clear that I simply mean that they can speak all they want, but we're equally entitled to not invite them to any serious discussion on the matter until they grow the **** up. Free speech does not mean that we have to give them a platform. I really shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.

I always wonder what is this "we" that you keep referring. Do you think you have any power, any say on who gets to have platforms and who doesn't? What kind of community do you see yourself belonging to that does indeed have this kind of power? Should this even exist? Should only people you like get the "mike"? Freedom comes with these things, it's also the freedom to be at the risk of having douchebags having a say in our societies.


And, again, I am not defending the UKIP. I'm saying that this rethoric anti-UKIP and anti-Tea Party, combined with the unwillingness to solve many problems that were being detected by a lot of people, were the actual things that have *created* these parties in the first place. Don't repeat the same mistake.

[The E]

And, again, I am not defending the UKIP. I'm saying that this rethoric anti-UKIP and anti-Tea Party, combined with the unwillingness to solve many problems that were being detected by a lot of people, were the actual things that have *created* these parties in the first place. Don't repeat the same mistake.

You might not have noticed this, Luis, but we are essentially agreeing with you. Yes, there is a need for the points raised by these people to be addressed, but the people doing so at the moment are not doing a good job of it.

Farage is a euroskeptic. Fine. He is critical of the EU. Great. Hey, he even got elected as MEP, campaigning on that skepticism and criticism etc, calling the members of the european parliament out on their massive salaries that go to waste.
What did he do in parliament? Did he make an effort to reform the system? No. Did he make an effort to represent british interests in the committees? No. He and his party set record lows for attendance. Their behaviour was consistently obstructionist and non-constructive. That is not effective policymaking.

He did, however, take home a good salary for his tenure. So there's that.

No matter how much you go on about how the media is corrupt and biased and evil, those are matters of record.

[Luis Dias]

Yeah that fish stuff looks terrible in his resumé. The rest depicted there is at least ideologically consistent - to vote in a "patriotic" direction would make him an hypocrite, not a patriot.

[headdie]

the whole out of Europe rather than reform Europe into something more workable is why i believe UKIP is wrong on a policy level regarding Europe

[karajorma]

In news related to my contention that thanks to UKIP we're dealing with laws designed to look anti-europe which make no sense, the Tories are continuing in their foolish decision to try to scrap the Human Rights Act. Unfortunately it looks like the wheels are already coming off that plan.

[666maslo666]

Actually, why don't you read up on the asswipes you've spent so long defending instead of continually saying you know nothing about them.

An article that describes UKIP or True Finns as "far right" is obviously written from a biased leftist perspective. When I hear the word "far right" I imagine a party that wants to kick out all foreigners and gas the Jews. I do not imagine anything like UKIP, a standard right wing party which has problems with some of their members being more to the right than others. According to that logic, if UKIP is far right then Labour is far left, lol. I am sure you could cherry pick some of Labour members who are communists or radical leftists and have said some questionable things, too. Yet it does not make the party itself far anything unless those of a more extreme persuation have major influence in the party, which doesnt seem to be the case.

The article does bring up some good criticisms, tough. But is it enough to justify marginalizing the UKIP and trying to keep them out of serious discussions? Not at all, IMHO.