Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
MikeyT

Which Political Party Do You Side With?

Recommended Posts

Posted

The quiz is for the 2010 election. It's a little less relevant but you should still have a good idea of what party represents you best by doing it.

 

Manifestos will be vastly different though going into next year, the political scene is changing like it never has before and the parties are reacting to that, all three of the main parties will be offering very different things they did in 2010.

Posted

modern politicians are a joke. Although when someone mentioned that Boris Jonson did not know the price of a pint of milk he was defended by the Tories on here (because he is a Tory no doubt)

I would rather Labour had a stronger leader. They make it easy for that smug poseur Cameron.

You want the country to plunge further into debt then Ken. Why do you think all the cuts are now taking place? Labour spent money they didn't have, and that's why we are all paying the price now. It will be an economic catastrophe, should they get back in, but I pray the electorate will not let this happen.

Posted

You want the country to plunge further into debt then Ken. Why do you think all the cuts are now taking place? Labour spent money they didn't have, and that's why we are all paying the price now. It will be an economic catastrophe, should they get back in, but I pray the electorate will not let this happen.

You understand that the worldwide financial crisis created most of the debt?

Posted

You understand that the worldwide financial crisis created most of the debt?

I believe that debt and the fact that there was no probable chance of it being repaid caused the the financial crisis.

Posted

nice avatar

Haha, well if you read up on Guevara you'd see that he stood for equal rights to the people, against capitalism and materialism. Perhaps not the ideal way to go about things, but being castigated by mainstream American media for being a 'commy' never helps anyone.

Not entirely sure how answering that immigrants should get free emergency health care but should be deported if they engage in terrorist activity makes that BNP though. Probably the same reason that answering that there should be more devolved powers makes me a Scottish Nationalist.  

Posted

Haha, well if you read up on Guevara you'd see that he stood for equal rights to the people, against capitalism and materialism. Perhaps not the ideal way to go about things, but being castigated by mainstream American media for being a 'commy' never helps anyone.

Not entirely sure how answering that immigrants should get free emergency health care but should be deported if they engage in terrorist activity makes that BNP though. Probably the same reason that answering that there should be more devolved powers makes me a Scottish Nationalist.  

 

He was also a puritanically Marxist mass-murderer. But each to their own.

 

(That's Che not Alex Salmond)

Posted

He was also a puritanically Marxist mass-murderer. But each to their own.

 

(That's Che not Alex Salmond)

Just about every iconic political leader in history has blood on their hands, Thatcher, Churchil, JFK etc. Guevara was literal of course, as opposed to starting illegal wars, permitting the killing of innocent civilians etc. As I said, obviously there's better way to go about things, but he saw what capitalism had done to the poor workers of Latin America and fought for their cause - I don't think placards, a silent protest and a hunger strike would have solved the crisis that was Cuba during its military dictatorship, but as you say, each to their own.

Posted

Interesting article in the telegraph about immigration and the misguided view that Norway and Switzerland are a good example of border control.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11190269/If-EU-migration-is-the-problem-Switzerland-and-Norway-are-not-the-answer.html

 

 

If EU migration is the problem, Switzerland and Norway are not the answer Since both Switzerland and Norway accept far more immigrants per capita than the UK, why do so many people look to them as the answer to Britain's immigration worries?

{C}{C}

Immigration_2522781b.jpg
If Britain wants to reduce immigration, following the Switzerland route isn't the way to go about it Photo: PA
 

By Mats Persson

2:24PM GMT 27 Oct 2014

 

comments.gif719 Comments

 

In the Spectator recently, Daniel Hannan set out what he thinks David Cameron should say in the great speech announcing he’s willing to contemplate Brexit: "Like Switzerland, we shall continue to participate fully in the European market." (Switzerland doesn’t actually “fully” participate in the European market in services, but let’s leave that one aside for now).

Farage has constantly called for the UK to leave the EU and "become like Switzerland", while some Better Off Outers also cling to the idea that the UK should become like Norway.

At the same time though, immigration and border control are now the most frequently cited reasons for leaving the EU – or at least that’s how the debate is framed, and Cameron has been struggling to come up with answers.

This is actually very odd, since Switzerland and Norway both accept more EU migrants per capita than the UK. In fact, many more.

In 2012, according to Eurostat, gross EU immigration to Switzerland was 90,107. This amounts to a gross inflow of 11.33 EU migrants per 1000 of its population. In comparison, gross EU migration to the UK was 157,554, but only at a rate of 2.48 per 1000 of its population. Norway, in the European Economic Area, also had a rate of gross EU immigration far higher than the UK, with 7.38 EU migrants per 1000 of its population.

In other words, if the UK had the same rate of EU immigration as Switzerland in 2012, the gross inflow of EU migration would have been 719,248 rather than the actual figure of 157,554. That’s just over four and a half times more.

The stocks of foreign-born people in each country tell a similar story. Both countries have higher foreign-born populations than the EU average, but Switzerland’s is much larger than the UK’s. Those born within the EU account for 15 per cent of Switzerland’s population while in the UK it is only 4.19 per cent, much closer to the EU average of 3.45 per cent.

Yes, but the point, I hear you say, is that Switzerland and Norway have much more democratic control over their immigration policy than the UK. This is only semi-true for Switzerland. And Norway, which is outside the EU but inside the European Economic Area and Schengen, arguably has less control over its borders than the UK – exactly the same free movement rules but no votes on these rules.

Switzerland is more complicated. The country is outside the EU but subject to almost the same free movement rules as the UK (via the bilateral Free Movement of Persons Agreement, which will give citizens of Bulgaria and Romania full access to the Swiss Labour market as of 31 May 2016 at the latest).

In a referendum in February, the Swiss voted to introduce quotas on EU migrants from 2017. However, the EU has so far refused to agree to this and has threatened to suspend its other bilateral agreements with the country if it unilaterally imposes quotas. You can argue that due to the UK’s size, it would be in a much stronger position to strike a deal. However, what you cannot do is to hail Norway and Switzerland as “some of the most successful countries in the world outside the EU” on the one hand, and fail to mention that both of them accept more EU migrants per head than the UK on the other.

Ukip’s new frontman, Douglas Carswell, has hailed Switzerland as a great example to follow on immigration. “It is no coincidence,” he has said, “that two of the countries with the best immigration systems I can think of – Switzerland and Australia – are both outside the EU.”

As it turns out, the Swiss model doesn’t involve full control of its own borders and, if you extrapolate it to the UK, it would mean the UK accepting roughly 390,000 more EU migrants net per year

 

 

 

 

Posted

As he been stated numerous times, I don't people have a problem with immigration per se, however they do have a problem with the quality of immigrant we attract.

 

I've not met anyone who been to Switzerland and not think we should be copying a lot of things that they do.

Posted

As he been stated numerous times, I don't people have a problem with immigration per se, however they do have a problem with the quality of immigrant we attract.

I've not met anyone who been to Switzerland and not think we should be copying a lot of things that they do.

Totally agree. Don't be fooled that the pro EU supporters dont understand this argument, they refuse to acknowledge it because they have no answer to it.
Posted

Totally agree. Don't be fooled that the pro EU supporters dont understand this argument, they refuse to acknowledge it because they have no answer to it.

Most of the more incompatible immigrant cultures are from outside of the EU.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...