Nigel Farage

[Webbo]

Its he purple bit that gave me away isn't it?

 

 

I don't believe for one second it's being taken away and certainly not by freedom of movement. And we did have the same immigration rules back then, I'm not that old like webbo you know.   

I'm middle aged!

[purpleronnie]

I'm middle aged!

soz webster.

[Webbo]

Why? I am interested in the truth not scoring political points:

 

Good, so am I. 

 

PS what's this graph meant to show?

[Webbo]

soz webster.

I forgive you, us Tories need to stick together.

[Captain...]

Good, so am I. 

 

PS what's this graph meant to show?

 

 

Maybe this one shows it better, I'm trying to find a graph that shows Unemployment, GDP and Migration, but I can't.

[MooseBreath]

Why? I am interested in the truth not scoring political points:

Goldmadesimplenews.com? Authoritative?

[MooseBreath]

Anyone who is genuinely interested in the facts around immigration and its effects on the labour market should have a read through this:

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration

It's a summary of the findings of all the relevant credible studies and shows amongst other things, the strong negative pressure immigration has on the wages of the low paid. It also explains that immigration has a negative effect on the employment rate during a downturn. Obviously during a debt fuelled boom unemployment is going to fall.

[Captain...]

I'm trying to not get involved in these debates as I am busy, but when I see the first graph, I see no correlation between unemployment and migration, we see high net migration and increasing employment, we see drops in net migration having no real impact on employment, and we have high migration and high unemployment.

 

This suggests there are other factors, in 2008 the global financial crisis kicks in and that is why we have high unemployment in 2008 and not because of immigration.

 

You can see a clear relationship with GDP and Unemployment in the second graph, after every recession we see a huge increase in unemployment that is slow to recover, which is similar to what we are seeing now, slow recovery from recession.

 

High immigration of unskilled labour is not going to help unemployment, but we can also see that it doesn't hinder it, 2004 we had very high immigration and were at lowest in terms of unemployment.

 

My point is really that this "immigration" scaremongering is largely a fallacy and as long as we are growing economically we can handle it, now if you want to talk about pursuing an economic policy based on growth as being short sighted and doomed to continue this cycle of boom and bust I'll see you in another thread.

 

So really I would be much more interested in UKIP's economic policy than their immigration policy as it is a fabricated issue that preys on people's fears and prejudices, I want to know what they will do to stimulate economic growth and generate jobs in Britain whilst breaking this cycle of boom and bust, because that is a much greater factor in joblessness than immigration.

[Alf Bentley]

There was that green mp who got arrested last year for taking part in those hideously ugly riots at that fracking site, not only severely damaging the local economy but they were also storming the buildings, frightening the life out of people just trying to make a living.

For the most part though we hear nothing about or from the greens, and with good reason, they've never been anything other than totally irrelevant and nobody cares what they do.

 

The Green MP who got arrested also got acquitted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27069345

 

Far from "taking part in hideously ugly riots...severely damaging the economy, storming buildings and frightening people", as you claim, the judge said he: "did not hear any evidence that any 'actual obstruction' of a vehicle or person was caused by the protest"

 

Innocent until proven guilty still applies in this country - and to be fair, I suspect that Farage actually has more respect for that principle than you appear to have.

 

Sadly, the second part of your comment is largely true. The Greens have been largely irrelevant to British politics so far - though, much more sadly, they may be a lot more relevant in 10, 20 or 30 years time. For now, they only have 1 MP - although that is 1 more than UKIP have ever had....though UKIP do have lots of abstentionist MEPs, who seem to mainly spend their time hanging out with other far right Euro-eccentrics instead of pressing their case in Strasbourg as they were elected to do.

 

The fact the country was booming and Tony Blair was PM was the reason for those victories, let's not kid ourselves into thinking it was the anti-EU campaign that got him elected, had IDS or Howard ran against Brown after a couple of years of his leadership I'm sure they would be sat in number 10 now. Blair was to Labour what Thatcher was to the Tories, both great leaders who appealed to the masses who actually wanted to better themselves, both would have been elected against any other Labour/Tory leader of my lifetime from the opposite side.

 

You're largely agreeing with me, Matt, and I largely agree with you!

 

As I said, at general elections people mainly decide their votes based on the economy, standard of living, public services  etc.

I certainly don't think that the anti-immigration, Eurosceptic campaign did for Hague or Howard - though Lynton Crosby, who "masterminded" the 2005 campaign presumably thought it would be successful...and he's in charge again now, isn't he? Be very worried, rightists!

 

Thatcher mainly won in 1979 because the economy was in a mess and carried on winning because the economy was doing  nicely for many people (but disastrously for a large minority). That's over-simplifying (leftist Lab, Lab/SDP split, Falklands, housing boom etc) but essentially true. Similarly, Blair won on the back of Major/Lamont's "Black Wednesday" crash, unemployment & lost economic credibility....and carried on winning in 2001 & 2005 because the economy & public services were doing well, despite the unpopularity of other policies (e.g. Iraq). Thatcher only became charismatic in office (she trailed her party in pre-election opinion polls in 1979 and was seen as a liability by many) - and charismatic leadership qualities would've been no good to either Thatcher or Blair if they'd been PM in 2010, having presided over the 2008 financial crash, even if it hadn't been their fault. You don't seriously believe that Blair would've won in 2010 despite the crash, do you? "It's the economy, stupid!" (mainly, anyway). [Not referring to you as stupid, of course - a Clinton quote, as I'm sure you know]

[Buce]

Surely the problem with uncontrolled migration goes beyond the labour market? What about the effect it has on housing availability, or the strain it puts on health provision?

[The God Emperor]

Surely the problem with uncontrolled migration goes beyond the labour market? What about the effect it has on housing availability, or the strain it puts on health provision?

pretty much. the whole johnny foreigner stealing jobs and lowering wages isn't the problem, those are both caused by other things. Although the foreign demons are always a handy excuse for people without the drive to be productive.

Unchecked immigration does not go very with welfare states, but get rid of that monstrosity and then we can take your tired, your hungry, your poor and your huddled masses yearning to be free. 

[MooseBreath]

Surely the problem with uncontrolled migration goes beyond the labour market? What about the effect it has on housing availability, or the strain it puts on health provision?

Yes the fact that it drives down the wages of the low paid is just one part of the problem. It also exerts pressure on a range of public services including health and schools, significantly lowering the quality of such services particularly in less well off areas. Likewise a big part of the reason why housing has become unaffordable to a big chunk of the lower end of the salary scale is the huge increase in demand caused by immigration.

Things remain pretty rosy for the relatively wealthy because an influx of cheap labour creates well paid jobs at a higher level, doesn't impact upon the services in more wealthy communities and drives up house prices making wealthy people even more wealthy. It's a stereotypical tory's dream. In reality however it's the caring sharing left who, for some reason, are constantly pushing for this savage attack on the living standards of the poor to continue unabated. Maybe they're still stuck in the idiotic 'I'm not racist I'll prove it by being pro-immigration' loop. Maybe they're bog standard bullshitty champagne socialists. Either way they've got their principles in a tangle, yet again.

[Alf Bentley]

Anyone who is genuinely interested in the facts around immigration and its effects on the labour market should have a read through this:

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration

It's a summary of the findings of all the relevant credible studies and shows amongst other things, the strong negative pressure immigration has on the wages of the low paid. It also explains that immigration has a negative effect on the employment rate during a downturn. Obviously during a debt fuelled boom unemployment is going to fall.

 

Yes, some good quality research behind that link, Moose. Suggests a fall in pay due to immigration for the 5% who are lowest paid, mainly concentrated on previous migrants - and to a lesser extent on the native unskilled. But little impact for most people - and slight increases in pay for those on medium to high incomes. In contrast, suggests that immigration has little or no effect on claimant levels (maybe some worsening of unemployment, but during downturns only)...confirming that "immigrant scroungers" or mass unemployment caused by immigration are red herrings. The real issue is the drag on pay for the lowest paid...and there are things that the government can do about that (if it wants to), such as ensuring that the minimum wage keeps pace with inflation, inspecting/cracking down on employers who breach minimum employment conditions etc.  

 

Surely the problem with uncontrolled migration goes beyond the labour market? What about the effect it has on housing availability, or the strain it puts on health provision?

 

How often do uncontrolled surges in immigration happen, though? 10 years ago, with the influx of Poles, certainly; late 60s/early 70s with the mass arrival of Asians expelled from East Africa...doesn't seem to have happened with Romanians & Bulgarians (anecdotally, at least).

 

There are bound to be short-term problems with the supply of housing, education and health services after such sudden influxes. But the market / government policy should be able to handle the slower shifts in population that are happening most of the time - and should even be able to respond to sudden surges in the medium-term (increases in house building by developers, investment in health/education facilities/training, funded by increased tax revenues, as most migrants will be working) in a way that will be beneficial to the economy/society.

 

Most migrants, particularly from Europe, are of working age and come to work. So, they'll probably pay more into the NHS through tax than they take out (as health spending is heavily concentrated on the elderly). Those that just come here to work for a few months or few years may have little impact on education spending, either, unless they choose to settle here with their families - and many don't.

 

There's also the "demographic timebomb". We're living longer and have been having fewer children over recent decades, so we actually need MORE people of working age to fund our aging population. Otherwise, we'll have to start working beyond 70 or have more drastic reform of pensions. Ironically, this problem may be reduced in 20 years time as the birth rate is rising again, fueled partly by immigrants settling and having kids: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204800/British-birth-rate-soared-highest-Europe-thanks-increase-migrants.html

[Guest MattP]

You're largely agreeing with me, Matt, and I largely agree with you!

 

As I said, at general elections people mainly decide their votes based on the economy, standard of living, public services  etc.

I certainly don't think that the anti-immigration, Eurosceptic campaign did for Hague or Howard - though Lynton Crosby, who "masterminded" the 2005 campaign presumably thought it would be successful...and he's in charge again now, isn't he? Be very worried, rightists!

 

Thatcher mainly won in 1979 because the economy was in a mess and carried on winning because the economy was doing  nicely for many people (but disastrously for a large minority). That's over-simplifying (leftist Lab, Lab/SDP split, Falklands, housing boom etc) but essentially true. Similarly, Blair won on the back of Major/Lamont's "Black Wednesday" crash, unemployment & lost economic credibility....and carried on winning in 2001 & 2005 because the economy & public services were doing well, despite the unpopularity of other policies (e.g. Iraq). Thatcher only became charismatic in office (she trailed her party in pre-election opinion polls in 1979 and was seen as a liability by many) - and charismatic leadership qualities would've been no good to either Thatcher or Blair if they'd been PM in 2010, having presided over the 2008 financial crash, even if it hadn't been their fault. You don't seriously believe that Blair would've won in 2010 despite the crash, do you? "It's the economy, stupid!" (mainly, anyway). [Not referring to you as stupid, of course - a Clinton quote, as I'm sure you know]

 

Of course, 2015 will be fought on the economy, no doubt, hence you'll see a lot of Kippers go back to Labour and Conservatives then, you only have to look at the Euro polling compared to the general to see that.

 

Would Blair or Thatcher have won in 2010? I think it's very possible actually, we are talking about Gordon Brown here, probably the most disastrous Prime Minister in living memory for a lot of people and Cameron still couldn't achieve a majority, I know that was partly due to how many people Brown had put on the state payroll but I still think a strong leader would have absolutely walked all over him.

 

So really I would be much more interested in UKIP's economic policy than their immigration policy as it is a fabricated issue that preys on people's fears and prejudices, I want to know what they will do to stimulate economic growth and generate jobs in Britain whilst breaking this cycle of boom and bust, because that is a much greater factor in joblessness than immigration.

 

So would a lot of people, hopefully after the European Elections we can get past the slander and the political questioners on our televisions can actually start asking these questions rather than throwing 100 questions a time at Nigel Farage asking him if he is racist or about some EU directive a million times before.

 

Ironically the people calling for this when they get the chance seem to do exactly the opposite!

 

There's also the "demographic timebomb". We're living longer and have been having fewer children over recent decades, so we actually need MORE people of working age to fund our aging population. Otherwise, we'll have to start working beyond 70 or have more drastic reform of pensions. Ironically, this problem may be reduced in 20 years time as the birth rate is rising again, fueled partly by immigrants settling and having kids: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204800/British-birth-rate-soared-highest-Europe-thanks-increase-migrants.html

 

People are quite simply going to have to work far longer, the increases to 68 won't be enough and they pointless anyway if we are going to have loopholes that just allow people to retire early anyway on state money as we appear to have when you read some peoples situations on here.

[Strokes]

The only party with a credible economic policy are the Tories, so it hardly blows Ukip out of the water.

[orangecity23]

Important UKIP related newsletter spoofery regarding Leicestershire UKIP MEP Roger Helmer. Someone got hold of Helmer's email list, and sent out this fantastic spoof newsletter.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/215876769/Straight-Talking-from-Roger-Helmer

 

 

 

STRAIGHT TALKING - #3 April 2014,
Roger Helmer’s electric newsletter from
Strasbourg
 
Hello there Helmer fans, it’s me again, definitely the real Roger Helmer, back with another hot mouthful of news and
views from Strasbourg, or ‘The Bourg’ as I like to call it. I call it that because it’s just like ‘The Borg’ from Star Trek around here, with all these mindless, shuffling EU Strasborgs milling about inside this giant, darkened EU voting cube, turning dials and pushing buttons on their chests. Bloody robots. It makes me sick just being around them, hearing them talk in their ridiculous robot languages.

Get this, readers, the German word for the German language is Deutsch, but the Dutch word for the Dutch language is Nederlands, and the Netherlands calls itself Holland, but Hollande is the president of France. I tell you readers, if words were drugs, the EU would be a great big needle sharing drug party, with Brussels handing out language-meth on a tax-payer funded platter and Belgium spitting gobs of grammar-cocaine into Italy’s MDMA-rimmed verb-arsehole.  Anyway, there’s only one language I’m interested in and that’s the language of STRAIGHT TALKING. And English. ...

[Vacamion]

Italy’s MDMA-rimmed verb-arsehole

 

Bwahahahahaha. 

 

Brilliant.

[Alf Bentley]

Of course, 2015 will be fought on the economy, no doubt, hence you'll see a lot of Kippers go back to Labour and Conservatives then, you only have to look at the Euro polling compared to the general to see that.

 

Would Blair or Thatcher have won in 2010? I think it's very possible actually, we are talking about Gordon Brown here, probably the most disastrous Prime Minister in living memory for a lot of people and Cameron still couldn't achieve a majority, I know that was partly due to how many people Brown had put on the state payroll but I still think a strong leader would have absolutely walked all over him.

 

We'll never know, but I'm dubious. I struggle to think of any PMs who've hung on due to personal strength/charisma despite the economy or living standards being in a mess.

 

On the contrary, I can think of several who lost to less popular opposition leaders due to the economy/living standards:

- 1945: The personally dull Attlee winning a landslide v. the war hero Churchill on a promise of better living standards

- 1970: The strange and unpopular Heath ousting "clever" incumbent Wilson due to a sterling crisis

- 1979: Thatcher, trailing her party in opinion poll ratings, winning well against likeable "Sunny Jim" Callaghan due to the Winter of Discontent (she only became a strong, charismatic - and disastrous  - leader in office)

- 1992: The distinctly uncharismatic John Major hanging on, apparently against the odds, mainly due to fears of "Labour's tax bombshell" (a slightly different scenario, admittedly, as Labour were in opposition and Kinnock wasn't Mr. Popular either)

 

According to Newsnight, Farage will announce tomorrow (today!) whether he'll stand in the Westminster by-election for Newark triggered by the allegedly corrupt (but likeable) Tory MP Patrick Mercer resigning his seat. That could get interesting! 

[Alf Bentley]

According to Newsnight, Farage will announce tomorrow (today!) whether he'll stand in the Westminster by-election for Newark triggered by the allegedly corrupt (but likeable) Tory MP Patrick Mercer resigning his seat. That could get interesting! 

 

Farage has now announced that he WON'T be standing in the Newark by-election. Doesn't want to be seen as a carpet-bagger and wants to concentrate on the Euro elections, he says. Correct strategic decision from a UKIP perspective, I'd say...but might've been different if the by-election had been announced after the Euro elections...

 

For the general election, he was talking before about standing somewhere in East Kent, where I come from. Mentioned Folkestone, where I came from, and Thanet South (Ramsgate area). Will be interesting to see which constituency he chooses. East Kent would be a strong area for UKIP, given vicinity to the Channel - quite a deprived area (for the SE) with a lot of anti-EU/anti-immigrant feeling.

 

Folkestone is a safe Tory seat, Thanet South usually Tory but went Labour during the Blair high tide (1997-2005?). That suggests UKIP still see the Tories as their main source of votes. If he went for Dover (Con/Lab swing seat), that would suggest otherwise.

[Guest MattP]

Farage has now announced that he WON'T be standing in the Newark by-election. Doesn't want to be seen as a carpet-bagger and wants to concentrate on the Euro elections, he says. Correct strategic decision from a UKIP perspective, I'd say...but might've been different if the by-election had been announced after the Euro elections...

 

For the general election, he was talking before about standing somewhere in East Kent, where I come from. Mentioned Folkestone, where I came from, and Thanet South (Ramsgate area). Will be interesting to see which constituency he chooses. East Kent would be a strong area for UKIP, given vicinity to the Channel - quite a deprived area (for the SE) with a lot of anti-EU/anti-immigrant feeling.

 

Folkestone is a safe Tory seat, Thanet South usually Tory but went Labour during the Blair high tide (1997-2005?). That suggests UKIP still see the Tories as their main source of votes. If he went for Dover (Con/Lab swing seat), that would suggest otherwise.

 

Glad he hasn't done it, Newark is safe Tory anyway, he wouldn't have won and he should be concentrating everything on winning the European Elections.

 

Has to be Thanet South doesn't it for the GC? If not maybe an area on the East Coast that has felt the effect of the freedom of movement policy if not but it has to be close to home given what he has said in the past.

 

On a side note, will they EVER learn? lol  UKIP supporters are now "Euracists"

 

 

The first cross-party campaign to condemn Nigel Farage's party as racist is to be launched this week amid fresh polls showing Ukip may come first across England in the European elections in May.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/28/ukip-european-election-accused-of-racism

[Bellend Sebastian]

UKIP supporters are now "Euracists"

 

It's alright but I think they should've gone with 'UPricks'

[bovril]

UKIP supporters are now "Euracists"

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/28/ukip-european-election-accused-of-racism

 

Made me think of 'Eurasia' in 1984.

[Alf Bentley]

 

Has to be Thanet South doesn't it for the GE? If not maybe an area on the East Coast that has felt the effect of the freedom of movement policy but it has to be close to home given what he has said in the past.

 

 

- Thanet South, if UKIP expect to take votes approx. 50% from Tories, 25% from Lab, 25% from non-voters, BNP, Lib Dems etc.

- Folkestone, if they expect 90% of their votes to be from the Tories

- Dover, if they expect to win votes equally from Tories and Labour

- West Kent: Bad idea; prosperous commuterland; Tories too strong

- North Kent/Medway towns: Probably a bad idea - Lab too strong & will target seats here

Your self-appointed expert on Kentish politics says: Thanet South

 

Not sure Farage would appeal to the insular folk of Lincs/Norfolk, as he's very "saloon bar South-East". Maybe somewhere like Peterborough - Tory seat but sizeable Lab support, very high immigration recently....could be a good place for him to stir up fear and xenophobia. 

[RobHawk]

Farage had to cancel in Swansea today after people turned up to protest against him and it kicked off with pro UKIP supporters!

[oxford blue]

A pragmatic decision not to contest Newark. Even if he had won, it would be highly unlikely he could retain it at a general election. Far better for him to run in a Kent constituency (as described above) where he stands a good chance of winning, and therefore in the Commons for several years.