Another tory defects to UKIP

[bovril]

well if your relaxed and happy to have ANOTHER 120 million turks free access to this country great..Im happy for you.

 

Population of Turkey is 75 million. At least I won't have to buy 25 Euro visa every three months when I go to Istanbul, happy days.

 

Just joking, take it easy.

[MooseBreath]

The old politics is dead, UKIP are uniting the working classes for one purpose

What purpose is that exactly? Raising tax on the majority to pay for cuts at either extreme? Stop building renewable energy and re-open the coal mines? Forget new transport infrastructure, there's more than enough horses to go around. Come on men mount up we're raising the defence budget so we can all have a horse and a spear and oust these foreign invaders like we did in the good old days?

[johnny the fox]

Population of Turkey is 75 million. At least I won't have to buy 25 Euro visa every three months when I go to Istanbul, happy days.

 

Just joking, take it easy.

75 million..well thats alright then..

[bovril]

75 million..well thats alright then..

 

Well at least it's 45 million less people for you to worry about, one hell of a weight off your mind!

[leicsmac]

What purpose is that exactly? Raising tax on the majority to pay for cuts at either extreme? Stop building renewable energy and re-open the coal mines? Forget new transport infrastructure, there's more than enough horses to go around. Come on men mount up we're raising the defence budget so we can all have a horse and a spear and oust these foreign invaders like we did in the good old days?

I agree with Moose.

Good grief.

[johnny the fox]

Well at least it's 45 million less people for you to worry about, one hell of a weight off your mind!

joking aside , the EU project was flawed from day one, the idea that so many diverse countries, economies and cultures  could be cobbled together by politicians and run from Belgium was folly..

 

 

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/turkey-population/  ps. they are breeding like rabbits..

[davieG]

joking aside , the EU project was flawed from day one, the idea that so many diverse countries, economies and cultures  could be cobbled together by politicians and run from Belgium was folly..

 

 

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/turkey-population/  ps. they are breeding like rabbits..

 

To most people from day one it was said to be a 'common market' for trading purposes only although whether there has always been an agenda from the 'elite' (whoever they are or indeed if ever they were) for a 'politically united'  Europe I don't know.

[johnny the fox]

To most people from day one it was said to be a 'common market' for trading purposes only although whether there has always been an agenda from the 'elite' (whoever they are or indeed if ever they were) for a 'politically united'  Europe I don't know.

Its called mission creep.. and we all know what occurs when that happens...

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep

[Buce]

I agree with Moose.

Good grief.

Me too.

Scary.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Is that you dad?

Yes, son.

[bluesbrothers]

I vote UKIP. There, I said it.

Why?

Because I think the EU's migration freedoms are fundamentally racist. No, seriously, hear me out.

In Leicester, we've got a diverse community of people from all around the world - particularly Commonwealth countries like India and Jamaica. They came and, for the best part, assimilated within the community. Yes, there's a certain amount of cultural difference between, say, Belgrave Road and St. Matthews, and the latter is perhaps the closest thing Leicester has to a "ghetto" - but on the whole, people in the city just get along. We're all Leicester folk - the massive turnouts from people of all backgrounds for the Diwali festival or Caribbean carnival tell you that. It's immigration done right, and I always defend the city compared to the horrific mess the likes of Luton, Bradford or Peterborough find themselves in.

 

However, since the Maastricht Treaty, an absurd situation has developed - and Peterborough is a place to have really suffered as a result - where being in an exclusive club of a few dozen countries kowtowing the line from Brussels means your citizens can go and work where and when they please. In other words, if you're from one of the (mostly Caucasian) Eastern Bloc countries and down on your luck, a job in the UK is probably only a plane-flight away, regardless of your qualifications. Meanwhile, if you're a skilled University Graduate here on a Student Visa from, say, India, and you finish your studies, your new qualification is nothing to the country unless you jump through a number of bureaucratic hoops to either get a Working VISA that EU migrants don't need, or take the even longer path to become a citizen. Likewise, there are skilled workers around the world with greater credentials, but less right, to live and work in the UK than anyone lucky enough to live within the EU. Anyone.

 

Back to Leicester, and while it's fairly straightforward for the Eastern European man down the road to move in and gain employment in Leicester, the Indian family next door have to apply for a VISA and go through god-knows how many channels just to have a relative over for the graduation of their Nephew, who will probably have to head back to India because, regardless of his new Law degree he got by studying the UK system for 3 years, it's far less hassle for him to work at home.

 

Say what you like about UKIP, but the Immigration system they've always advocated is based on the merits of the individual, and the contribution they will give the UK society. That should apply across all situations - visiting, studying, working or living in the country. Currently, personal ability means nothing, provided you're lucky enough to belong to a clique of about 485 million folks, mostly Caucasian, from a world population of 7 billion - excluding vast swathes of Asia and its various ethnicities from equal treatment when applying for opportunities in the UK. If that's not exclusionary and racist, I don't know what is.

 

One last thing - yes, having to get a VISA to go abroad, or to come here, is a pain, but I think it's a necessary evil to ensure that people are treated equally from the outset, and come here for the right reasons - it should apply to everybody.

[johnny the fox]

I vote UKIP. There, I said it.

Why?

Because I think the EU's migration freedoms are fundamentally racist. No, seriously, hear me out.

In Leicester, we've got a diverse community of people from all around the world - particularly Commonwealth countries like India and Jamaica. They came and, for the best part, assimilated within the community. Yes, there's a certain amount of cultural difference between, say, Belgrave Road and St. Matthews, and the latter is perhaps the closest thing Leicester has to a "ghetto" - but on the whole, people in the city just get along. We're all Leicester folk - the massive turnouts from people of all backgrounds for the Diwali festival or Caribbean carnival tell you that. It's immigration done right, and I always defend the city compared to the horrific mess the likes of Luton, Bradford or Peterborough find themselves in.

 

However, since the Maastricht Treaty, an absurd situation has developed - and Peterborough is a place to have really suffered as a result - where being in an exclusive club of a few dozen countries kowtowing the line from Brussels means your citizens can go and work where and when they please. In other words, if you're from one of the (mostly Caucasian) Eastern Bloc countries and down on your luck, a job in the UK is probably only a plane-flight away, regardless of your qualifications. Meanwhile, if you're a skilled University Graduate here on a Student Visa from, say, India, and you finish your studies, your new qualification is nothing to the country unless you jump through a number of bureaucratic hoops to either get a Working VISA that EU migrants don't need, or take the even longer path to become a citizen. Likewise, there are skilled workers around the world with greater credentials, but less right, to live and work in the UK than anyone lucky enough to live within the EU. Anyone.

 

Back to Leicester, and while it's fairly straightforward for the Eastern European man down the road to move in and gain employment in Leicester, the Indian family next door have to apply for a VISA and go through god-knows how many channels just to have a relative over for the graduation of their Nephew, who will probably have to head back to India because, regardless of his new Law degree he got by studying the UK system for 3 years, it's far less hassle for him to work at home.

 

Say what you like about UKIP, but the Immigration system they've always advocated is based on the merits of the individual, and the contribution they will give the UK society. That should apply across all situations - visiting, studying, working or living in the country. Currently, personal ability means nothing, provided you're lucky enough to belong to a clique of about 485 million folks, mostly Caucasian, from a world population of 7 billion - excluding vast swathes of Asia and its various ethnicities from equal treatment when applying for opportunities in the UK. If that's not exclusionary and racist, I don't know what is.

 

One last thing - yes, having to get a VISA to go abroad, or to come here, is a pain, but I think it's a necessary evil to ensure that people are treated equally from the outset, and come here for the right reasons - it should apply to everybody.

you know it makes sense.

[MooseBreath]

I vote UKIP. There, I said it.

Why?

Because I think the EU's migration freedoms are fundamentally racist. No, seriously, hear me out.

In Leicester, we've got a diverse community of people from all around the world - particularly Commonwealth countries like India and Jamaica. They came and, for the best part, assimilated within the community. Yes, there's a certain amount of cultural difference between, say, Belgrave Road and St. Matthews, and the latter is perhaps the closest thing Leicester has to a "ghetto" - but on the whole, people in the city just get along. We're all Leicester folk - the massive turnouts from people of all backgrounds for the Diwali festival or Caribbean carnival tell you that. It's immigration done right, and I always defend the city compared to the horrific mess the likes of Luton, Bradford or Peterborough find themselves in.

However, since the Maastricht Treaty, an absurd situation has developed - and Peterborough is a place to have really suffered as a result - where being in an exclusive club of a few dozen countries kowtowing the line from Brussels means your citizens can go and work where and when they please. In other words, if you're from one of the (mostly Caucasian) Eastern Bloc countries and down on your luck, a job in the UK is probably only a plane-flight away, regardless of your qualifications. Meanwhile, if you're a skilled University Graduate here on a Student Visa from, say, India, and you finish your studies, your new qualification is nothing to the country unless you jump through a number of bureaucratic hoops to either get a Working VISA that EU migrants don't need, or take the even longer path to become a citizen. Likewise, there are skilled workers around the world with greater credentials, but less right, to live and work in the UK than anyone lucky enough to live within the EU. Anyone.

Back to Leicester, and while it's fairly straightforward for the Eastern European man down the road to move in and gain employment in Leicester, the Indian family next door have to apply for a VISA and go through god-knows how many channels just to have a relative over for the graduation of their Nephew, who will probably have to head back to India because, regardless of his new Law degree he got by studying the UK system for 3 years, it's far less hassle for him to work at home.

Say what you like about UKIP, but the Immigration system they've always advocated is based on the merits of the individual, and the contribution they will give the UK society. That should apply across all situations - visiting, studying, working or living in the country. Currently, personal ability means nothing, provided you're lucky enough to belong to a clique of about 485 million folks, mostly Caucasian, from a world population of 7 billion - excluding vast swathes of Asia and its various ethnicities from equal treatment when applying for opportunities in the UK. If that's not exclusionary and racist, I don't know what is.

One last thing - yes, having to get a VISA to go abroad, or to come here, is a pain, but I think it's a necessary evil to ensure that people are treated equally from the outset, and come here for the right reasons - it should apply to everybody.

I'm against mass unskilled immigration too, but racist? Get a grip mate.

[Alf Bentley]

Dangerous Tiger bang on

 

Oh, he does, mate, indeed he does! 

 

The EU is based on "pooled sovereignty" in agreed policy areas. Calling for less pooled sovereignty, or even no pooled sovereignty is a logical political stance - though the idea that we need more national borders and more virulent nationalism is a strange lesson to draw from either economic globalisation or WW2. It certainly wasn't the one that Churchill drew, when he called for a United States of Europe in 1946:  https://archive.today/kOGDK

 

Talk of the French, Germans or even Brussels telling us what to do is as hysterical as it would be to suggest that Britain is running France, Germany or Brussels! To simplify: the European Commission proposes EU legislation - and has commissioners from every EU state: Lady Ashton (Foreign Affairs) & Lord Hill (Finance/Markets) for the UK; EU legislation is passed by a combination of the European Council/Council of Ministers (Cameron & his ministers with their opposite numbers from other EU nations) and the European Parliament (MEPs directly elected by voters across Europe, including the UK - and including UKIP MEPs).

 

By all means call for national isolationism or a Europe limited to a common market that "we" (our companies) can exploit through a national economy based on the City of London, high inequality, low pay, low tax and public squalor....but let's not pretend that Hitler and De Gaulle are in No. 10 !

 

Who the f--k wants the cnvting German scum, and the wet, dozy French telling us what we can, or cannot do? Only morons, of course. We fought two wars for our freedom in recent times, and it is an affront to those who died, to be lap dogs.

 

It goes way beyond that though, and they will bring a breath of fresh air to this decaying country, when the only opposition to the Tories, are  a retarded, inept, pathetic bunch of scum bags, called the Labour party.

 

Be warned, UKIP are coming to revitalize politics, and clean up the mess this country is now in.

 

 

 

 

"Bring a breath of fresh air into your life, with 'Eau de Farage', the new fragrance from UKIP! We took a subtle blend of scents - over-boiled cabbage, saloon bar ashtrays, a long-neglected Watneys Party Seven, cheese footballs, a golf club blazer left out in the rain, a soggy map of the British empire, piss-stained clippings from the Daily Express and a whiff of cordite from a WW2 bomb site; we added them to a vat of sour grapes, with just a hint of Alf Garnett's cheesy socks, Enoch Powell's belches, Jean-Marie Le Pen's eggy farts and Oswald Mosley's rotting corpse. Bring a breath of fresh air and an aroma of patriotism into your decaying life with Eau de Farage, the common sense fragrance from UKIP! You'll begin to dream that it was 1970, 1950 or 1935 all over again!"

 

If you wish to arrange a patriotic, common sense presentation of Eau de Farage, please contact our British marketing department and ask for Monsieur Huguenot-Le Farage or his wife Frau Scheister von Schweinhund (rider must include beer and fags).

[purpleronnie]

Who the f--k wants the cnvting German scum, and the wet, dozy French telling us what we can, or cannot do? Only morons, of course. We fought two wars for our freedom in recent times, and it is an affront to those who died, to be lap dogs.

 

It goes way beyond that though, and they will bring a breath of fresh air to this decaying country, when the only opposition to the Tories, are  a retarded, inept, pathetic bunch of scum bags, called the Labour party.

 

Be warned, UKIP are coming to revitalize politics, and clean up the mess this country is now in.

 

 

what mess is that DT, let me guess we have some immigrants.

 

Oh no run for the hills!!!!!

[bovril]

I wonder even if we pull out of the EU we'll keep a lot of the free movement in certain sectors, particularly agriculture. Heaven forbid some people will start having to pay decent wages!!

[Guest MattP]

  Can you answer a question here Matt? I'm genuinely curious.

Conservatism in economics is at least something I can understand (there's some pretty good logical arguments in favour), but I honestly don't get the idea behind strong social conservatism. All I hear is slippery slope fallacies ("hey, the gays can get married, it'll be the paedos next!") or purely emotive arguments based on no little prejudice ("ugh...those transgender people out in public...ugh, it's just wrong, you know."), sometimes based on some idea of 'morality' that was written in the first place to keep one demographic above all others, because they are 'natural' or 'normal'.

You're a pretty down to earth and reasonable bloke, so I'm asking for the view from the other side of the fence. Why? And is there a rational viewpoint in there somewhere?

PS. There are far less objectionable ways to keep fox populations down. A good shotgun will do the trick, I'm sure. And it would certainly be faster.

 

Well I'm not personally against gay marriage, I was using it as an example of why Cameron has possibly lost some support.

 

I think you are brushing off the concept of Social Conservatism without much thought at all there, the basis of it is a stable family and you work from that to build a better society, we already have more than enough evidence to suggest that kids from stable families are far more likely to get a good education, to stay out of prison etc etc - this isn't something that should be completed brushed off because some people use it as a stick to bash people with.

 

Then you also have behaviour that should be adhered to, I find watching people all over each other in public quite disgusting gay or straight, I often think we lack a lot of moral decency and some things you see around town on a Saturday wouldn't have been out of a bedroom quite rightly 40 years back. Then you get to see things like gay pride marches and I see behaviour so despicable I want to vomit.

 

As for the last point, how many people eould you hire to do that? Who would be qualified? Would it be tax payer funded? I think you'll have a tough job getting that through parliament

 

Bit of rewriting history here Ron, half way through the Euro debates you thought Clegg was 'smashing him'

 

As for the last bit, you are actually often part of the problem, I think I must have counted 10-12 times now where either me, Webbo, Strokes have asked you to come back with a defence of the expansion of the EU and you never seem to, if you have I've missed it on numerous occasions.

 

Still waiting Ron, you must have seen this, I hope we don't get another thread soon in the suture where you yet again come in championing the EU with again no effort or opinions to back it up. It's the reason you are losing this battle.

 

Well I'm not the only person who voted Green in the European Parliament election, I believe they got more votes than the Conservatives and UKIP in Brighton and Hove. They're still very much in the running for re-election there, while there is some discontent, I don't think you can use that to suggest that Greens would have be bad for the country. Having said that I voted in the European Elections for the Greens largely because their manifesto appealed to me far more than any others (other than the Lib Dems who I have no desire to vote for), I haven't voted for them on a local level and I don't know if I will, their performance on a local level wasn't really relevant to my decision in the EU elections.

 

My dislike of UKIP is a lot stronger than my support for any other party, which is why I'm not championing the other side, I have no idea who I'm going to vote for in the General Election and certainly don't particularly strongly support any party. I'm generally pretty open to voting for any party whose policies appeal to me. Whilst I lean towards being pro EU, I don't feel that strongly about it and it's not why I dislike UKIP, so there would be very little point. UKIP are getting significant enough support now, I believe, to suggest they're a legitimate political threat. So I think it would be very naive to vote for them purely because you want Britain out of the European Union, they're not exactly the only party offering that or offering a referendum on the subject. My problem with UKIP voters is that a lot seem to be letting their discontent with the European Union lead them toward voting for a party built on xenophobia and unfounded patriotism and I fear a good proportion will do so in the general election. The majority of UKIP's 'issues'/policies are awful, that's why I think people voting for them are stupid.

 

Well yes the Greens will get more votes than UKIP in Brighton, the demographics of the City pretty much ensure that. I'm not going to bother with the rest of this as it's just the usual drivel that 95% of people have actually stopped now regarding UKIP, if you havn't realised people aren't buying the Xenophobia or 'unfounded patriotism' (what on earth is that even?) cards then there isn't much I can do for you anymore, people have genuine concerns and they aren't going to be bullied by the liberal elite anymore that can peddle these lies.

 

If you are seriously going to go around calling people stupid for voting UKIP whilst you live in the Midlands voting Green then you will rightly be pulled up on it.

[purpleronnie]

Well I'm not personally against gay marriage, I was using it as an example of why Cameron has possibly lost some support.

 

I think you are brushing off the concept of Social Conservatism without much thought at all there, the basis of it is a stable family and you work from that to build a better society, we already have more than enough evidence to suggest that kids from stable families are far more likely to get a good education, to stay out of prison etc etc - this isn't something that should be completed brushed off because some people use it as a stick to bash people with.

 

Then you also have behaviour that should be adhered to, I find watching people all over each other in public quite disgusting gay or straight, I often think we lack a lot of moral decency and some things you see around town on a Saturday wouldn't have been out of a bedroom quite rightly 40 years back. Then you get to see things like gay pride marches and I see behaviour so despicable I want to vomit.

 

As for the last point, how many people eould you hire to do that? Who would be qualified? Would it be tax payer funded? I think you'll have a tough job getting that through parliament

 

 

Still waiting Ron, you must have seen this, I hope we don't get another thread soon in the suture where you yet again come in championing the EU with again no effort or opinions to back it up. It's the reason you are losing this battle.

 

 

Well yes the Greens will get more votes than UKIP in Brighton, the demographics of the City pretty much ensure that. I'm not going to bother with the rest of this as it's just the usual drivel that 95% of people have actually stopped now regarding UKIP, if you havn't realised people aren't buying the Xenophobia or 'unfounded patriotism' (what on earth is that even?) cards then there isn't much I can do for you anymore, people have genuine concerns and they aren't going to be bullied by the liberal elite anymore that can peddle these lies.

 

If you are seriously going to go around calling people stupid for voting UKIP whilst you live in the Midlands voting Green then you will rightly be pulled up on it.

Matt I often comment then don't read replies as it's the same old same old, just as you find certain responses boring too.  Do you really want to debate the EU?, it's been done to death, if you can't see ANY positives in the EU then you must be so biased it's a pointless arguement.  I can see advantages and disadvantages, but personally I prefer to be in the EU just like the huge amount of UK businesses do...but I'm sure they all don't have a clue either eh?.  It's not a losing battle if I decide not to par take in the same old arguements, it's just pointless. 

[Guest MattP]

Matt I often comment then don't read replies as it's the same old same old, just as you find certain responses boring too.  Do you really want to debate the EU?, it's been done to death, if you can't see ANY positives in the EU then you must be so biased it's a pointless arguement.  I can see advantages and disadvantages, but personally I prefer to be in the EU just like the huge amount of UK businesses do...but I'm sure they all don't have a clue either eh?.  It's not a losing battle if I decide not to par take in the same old arguements, it's just pointless. 

 

I see many positives in it, I would still support the orginal common market were it still in place. The expansion of the project and it's inteference on our own laws and government though have left it with the negatives far outweighing the positives imo.

 

I actually think the pro-EU are struggling to defend this project in it's current form as it actually is indefensible currently and only seems to benefit those who are rich or on the side of big business that can enjoy the benefits cheap labour can bring. We'll be having a referendum on this soon and you'll have to put up a far better argument that what Cleggy did or we're a goner from it.

[Guest MattP]

Love the logic btw....

 

Big business warns us about Labour party - scaremongering.

Big business says we should be in EU - take it as 100% truth.

[purpleronnie]

I actually think changes should be made to the EU, but firmly believe we need to be in it to reform it, the alternative of pulling out completely i believe as many other's do would be a mistake.

[leicsmac]

Well I'm not personally against gay marriage, I was using it as an example of why Cameron has possibly lost some support.

 

I think you are brushing off the concept of Social Conservatism without much thought at all there, the basis of it is a stable family and you work from that to build a better society, we already have more than enough evidence to suggest that kids from stable families are far more likely to get a good education, to stay out of prison etc etc - this isn't something that should be completed brushed off because some people use it as a stick to bash people with.

 

Then you also have behaviour that should be adhered to, I find watching people all over each other in public quite disgusting gay or straight, I often think we lack a lot of moral decency and some things you see around town on a Saturday wouldn't have been out of a bedroom quite rightly 40 years back. Then you get to see things like gay pride marches and I see behaviour so despicable I want to vomit.

 

As for the last point, how many people eould you hire to do that? Who would be qualified? Would it be tax payer funded? I think you'll have a tough job getting that through parliament

 

 

 

Thanks for getting back to me on this one. 

 

I agree I've probably used a broad brush, but then I'm a bit tired of those who use the idea of 'traditional values' to attack people who aren't them or their particular demographic. By the way, I'm referring to strong social conservatives here, as I mentioned in my OP. The ones who refuse any kind of compromise regarding what's 'right' and 'wrong'.

 

Having a stable family unit and encouraging healthy relationships for the sake of the children in them is a good sentiment, certainly - but what exactly defines 'stability'? No arguments? Both parents working and/or financially solvent? Just two opposite-gender parents remaining together?

 

I've seen a fair few messed up kids with households as '2.4 children'-like (the house, the mortgage, the two cars and two children in surburbia etc) as you like...it's not the be all and end all of a growing society. Agree with you that it can give kids a better chance given the statistics, but it shouldn't be pursued singlemindedly as the Only Possible Option given how it can still go wrong and how single/same-sex parents can still provide a stable household for children given the right circumstances.

 

The whole idea of 'acceptable behaviour' is a whole different kettle of fish entirely. I think that people macking in public is unnecessary (save that shit for the bedroom or somewhere else private, folks), but disgusting? Nah. And definitely not worth passing a law against, for instance. The whole attitude towards...'bedroom activity', shall we say, in this country is repressive to the point of laughability, and I actually think it's detrimental to the country as a whole in the form of higher incidences of STI's and teen pregnancies than a lot of the rest of the developed world caused by a lack of discourse and education. It's getting better, from what I can tell, but there's still a fair bit of work to do, in the form of actually educating and encouraging safe and consensual activity, rather than just deflecting it all with an embarrassed expression. But I digress.

 

My issue really is that some people take other people acting 'not normal' (eg. not normal in their eyes) in public and try to make out like it's violating some kind of absurd moral law, and therefore 'shouldn't be allowed'. As I said in my original post, take some of the slurs against, say, a trans woman out in public. I wonder how many times she's been misgendered (called a bloke) or given some other slur this month alone, because of some perceived moral compass that means she shouldn't be allowed to exist? As far as I'm concerned, freedom of expression is freedom of expression - as long as it doesn't veer into directly violating other peoples freedom, it's ok. 

 

As an example, nutter Choudary spouting off about 'killing the infidel' is not ok, as the hateful willy puller is clearly violating other peoples freedom by wanting them dead. But a guy in a leather suit leading around another guy in a dog collar with a pair of nipple clamps at a Pride parade, while definitely OTT for public showing and will cause people to talk (often negatively), doesn't actually clearly violate other peoples freedom in that way as they're not seeking to harm anyone. 

 

Of course, your own freedom of expression means you can pass comment on how depraved and disgusting that stuff is, but I think anyone wanting it to actually be banned in the name of 'morality' is taking it too far. 

 

In short, I think social conservatives tend to spend too much time in the past and have a pretty black and white absolutist view of morality, and while some of that is good, some of it certainly is not.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Maybe these politicians are changing parties because they are feeling a bit tired and jaded?

 

Just a thought.

[leicsmac]

Maybe these politicians are changing parties because they are feeling a bit tired and jaded?

 

Just a thought.

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OverlyLongGag

 

[purpleronnie]

Just thought I'd post this, it's quite an interesting read about peoples (often incorrect) perceptions about immigration.

 

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/sri-perceptions-and-reality-immigration-report-summary-2013.pdf