UKIP Thread

[silkyman]

I think that's the end of UKIP to be honest. The leader will go, and their key campaigning platform - leaving the EU - on which everything else they stood for hung, is now going to be down to the public when the referendum is held. Whatever the result of that, there's no real need for UKIP to be there, either because the public has spoken to stay in the EU, or because they have already left.

 

[Alty]

I think that's the end of UKIP to be honest. The leader will go, and their key campaigning platform - leaving the EU - on which everything else they stood for hung, is now going to be down to the public when the referendum is held. Whatever the result of that, there's no real need for UKIP to be there, either because the public has spoken to stay in the EU, or because they have already left.

I agree there's the potential for things to go that way, but I wouldn't be sure. They're going to finish with around 4 million votes nationwide - mainly from people disaffected with the big parties and looking for an alternative. Plus look at Scotland. Scottish independence is the SNP's raison d'etre. They lost the referendum last year. And yet they've come back with an incredible victory in this election.

Constitutional questions never go away completely. If you can find something else to galvanise people while you bide your time ahead of having another go at constitutional change, you can survive and eventually prosper.

 

[Conker]

I agree about the potential for UKIP to pretty much fade away but it depends how they build upon gaining 4 million votes.

120 Constituencies finishing second is geniunely a strong foundation, and a change of leadership could do wonders, I think they have some good politicians in the ranks.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I think that's the end of UKIP to be honest. The leader will go, and their key campaigning platform - leaving the EU - on which everything else they stood for hung, is now going to be down to the public when the referendum is held. Whatever the result of that, there's no real need for UKIP to be there, either because the public has spoken to stay in the EU, or because they have already left.

There's still overwhelming public support for reduced immigration and no big party that wants to address it. Plus, Farage has already kinda hinted that he could be back in charge in September.

 

[silkyman]

But it all stemmed from leaving the EU.

If the public vote us out in 2017, then they have nothing to fight. If we stay in, they can't deliver the key first stage of their plan.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

If the public vote us out in 2017, then they have nothing to fight.

The UK leaving the EU isn't going to stop the mainstream parties from continuing to support mass immigration, opposition to which is far more popular than support for leaving the EU is.

If we stay in, they can't deliver the key first stage of their plan.

Which would be all the more reason for them to stick around.

 

[silkyman]

Leaving the EU would make a huge difference to immigration. We wouldn't have to take people from the EU and could make life harder for non EU trying to get in. The Tories would be all over that.

If the public vote against leaving then they've basically voted against UKIP

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Leaving the EU would make a huge difference to immigration. We wouldn't have to take people from the EU and could make life harder for non EU trying to get in. The Tories would be all over that.

The Tories are pro-mass immigration. The love it. The give lip service to immigration control, just as Labour do, but they and their corporate sugar daddies can't get enough of it.

If the public vote against leaving then they've basically voted against UKIP

Yeah, I remember when the SNP lost a referendum and just packed it all in...

 

[Red]

I think EG is right. As much as it would be excellent to see UKIP disappear up its own arse, it won't because like Alty says its raison d'etre is Britian leaving the EU and they'll keep fighting for that . If after a referendum the UK did leave the EU I'm sure UKIP would stay around to try and implement their other serious policies like re-introducing smoking in pubs.

I'd love to see Farage's face if the UK decided to stay in the EU after a referendum.

 

[Red]

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

They're basically FALLING APART

Lovely stuff

 

[Tilbury]

Leaving the EU would make a huge difference to immigration. We wouldn't have to take people from the EU and could make life harder for non EU trying to get in. The Tories would be all over that.

If the public vote against leaving then they've basically voted against UKIP

We actually get more non-eu immigrants than from the EU. And they generally tend to be of worse benefit to the economy too. Highlights the UKIP lie though.

 

[Alty]

We actually get more non-eu immigrants than from the EU. And they generally tend to be of worse benefit to the economy too. Highlights the UKIP lie though.

No we don't. It varies year by year. But last year 560,000 people came to Britain (legally). 265,000 were from outside the EU. 295,000 were EU migrants.

UKIP's claim is that that by being members of the EU, we have no control over the quantity or quality of people who come to the UK from the EU. That's true. Attempts to refute this assertion are always so disingenuous."Our NHS would collapse without immigrants". "Immigrants pay more tax than they claim in benefits, therefore they're good for the economy". Do I even need to point out why these points are incredibly stupid?

UKIP are in a bit of a mess, but without getting all IDS, the prospect of an EU Referendum campaign is surely enough incentive for them to unite rather than die? We'll see. But tearing themselves apart now would be bonkers.

I really hope the Eurosceptic elements within the Britsh left have the guts to come out in their numbers when the referendum comes round. If there's to be any chance of a vote for independence it'll need people from across the political spectrum making the case. I'm still not hopeful given the amount of money the big corporations (whose opinions the soft left-liberals suddenly seem to really value when it comes to the issue of EU withdrawal!?) will pour in to scare us into staying.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Do I even need to point out why these points are incredibly stupid?

Probably. Go ahead.

I really hope the Eurosceptic elements within the Britsh left have the guts to come out in their numbers when the referendum comes round. If there's to be any chance of a vote for independence it'll need people from across the political spectrum making the case.

Tony Benn was really the last giant of the left who could articulate a pro-democracy case against the EU. Well, plenty of left-leaning people can articulate the case, but few commanded the respect he did. And the selfish old bastard died on us. Struggling to think of an equivalent among the living.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

No we don't. It varies year by year. But last year 560,000 people came to Britain (legally). 265,000 were from outside the EU. 295,000 were EU migrants.

UKIP's claim is that that by being members of the EU, we have no control over the quantity or quality of people who come to the UK from the EU. That's true. Attempts to refute this assertion are always so disingenuous."Our NHS would collapse without immigrants". "Immigrants pay more tax than they claim in benefits, therefore they're good for the economy". Do I even need to point out why these points are incredibly stupid?

UKIP are in a bit of a mess, but without getting all IDS, the prospect of an EU Referendum campaign is surely enough incentive for them to unite rather than die? We'll see. But tearing themselves apart now would be bonkers.

I really hope the Eurosceptic elements within the Britsh left have the guts to come out in their numbers when the referendum comes round. If there's to be any chance of a vote for independence it'll need people from across the political spectrum making the case. I'm still not hopeful given the amount of money the big corporations (whose opinions the soft left-liberals suddenly seem to really value when it comes to the issue of EU withdrawal!?) will pour in to scare us into staying.

The primary driver for immigration to Britain is a structural demand for labour. People come over here to work. That structural demand exists regardless of the legal status of migrants. Controlling our borders makes little sense because the structural demand will draw people here anyway and they will simply end up working on an illegal basis in increasingly exploitative conditions.

Open borders are fundamentally a really good thing and we need more, not less of them. If nothing else, the EU gives us limited freedom of movement.

The key is to stop workers being exploited. Roll back casualisation. Make a living wage compulsory. Abolish private property. That sort of stuff.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Given that there's a huge oversupply of labour where we need it least, I'd say it's much more sensible to call it a demand for work, from people the state has no obligation to, than a demand for labour. Immigration control isn't there to stop everyone coming in arbitrarily, it's there to separate the wheat from the chaff to best benefit the nation. Canada and Australia are testament to how successful it is.

Open borders are only a good thing if you hate diversity, hate culture, hate national identity, and have the best interests of multinational mega corporations at heart. If you really want to help the plight of foreign workers in general, then creating a situation in which the working young migrate en masse to already rich countries is not the way to do it. The Romanian pension system is already collapsing because of it. But as with most emotionally charged leftist policies, like raising the minimum wage or free tuition, they don't look past the end of their nose.

 

[silkyman]

Freudian

 

[Alty]

Probably. Go ahead.

Tony Benn was really the last giant of the left who could articulate a pro-democracy case against the EU. Well, plenty of left-leaning people can articulate the case, but few commanded the respect he did. And the selfish old bastard died on us. Struggling to think of an equivalent among the living.

On point 1. It's a totally false choice. I suspect our NHS would be in crisis if we immediately deported all the migrants working in it. But is anyone advocating that? No. And is it EU freedom of movement rules that keeps the NHS going? Of course not. How many Bulgarian doctors are there in the UK? The key point is that in a post-Brexit world we could still encourage whatever immigration we actually needed. Which is a hell of a lot more sensible than saying to 500 million "come here no matter what your skill level or aspiration" and hoping the level and type of immigration will match up with our national interests.

The "more tax than benefits" argument just shows a total lack of understanding of wider social and economic consequences. If a Polish bloke comes to the UK and registers with an agency he may well get regular work through it, thus sustaining himself without claiming benefits and even paying a few quid in tax. But that work could have been done by someone already resident in Britain. What happens to that person? And what about the NHS treatment the migrant will receive? And what about when his kids go to school? And what about the knock on effect on house prices of more and more demand when we're already well short of the number of homes we need for the existing population?

Of course, I appreciate that there are EU migrants who come to the UK and start businesses that create jobs. It's not quite as simple as every EU migrant taking a job or living off benefits. But we need to look at the whole scenario holistically. Most EU migrants come here to do low-skill work. We've got plenty of people who could do that here.

Just while we're on the subject, it also confused me that people say we need more migration so we can keep the pension system going. Has nobody noticed that immigrants get old too!?

Agree with you on Benn. Strikes me as odd that the same people who laud his principles on everything else remain unable to disassociate Euroscepticism with xenophobia. Mind you, the hypocrisy on the left is something that exasperates me more and more with every passing day.

 

[Red]

Never ceases to amaze me how when talking about pressures on housing some people happily blame it all on on mass immigration and make no mention whatsover about the failure of successive governments to undertake a proper social housing building programme.

 

[Alty]

Never ceases to amaze me how when talking about pressures on housing some people happily blame it all on on mass immigration and make no mention whatsover about the failure of successive governments to undertake a proper social housing building programme.

Well it's both, isn't it? Yes we should have built and be building more houses. But when we're already well short, is it wise to be running at 300,000 net migration per year?

 

[Red]

Yeah, I'm on board with you on that, I'm just saying I hear a lot of people who support UKIP never mentioning the lack of social housing being built but having plenty to say about immigrants taking all out of our housing (and women...and jobs )

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

Is "Brexit" officially a thing now then? Criminy.

 

[silkyman]

Just because we've not had a swivel eyed UKIP nut job for a while...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...e-hanged-for-treason-says-Ukip-candidate.html

Wonder if he has DNR cards he puts on known voters of other parties?

 

[Aber gas]

Just because we've not had a swivel eyed UKIP nut job for a while...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...e-hanged-for-treason-says-Ukip-candidate.html

Wonder if he has DNR cards he puts on known voters of other parties?

That's the best one yet . What a fucking nut job .

 

[Hooped Wizard]

Queen Evans showing the Labour scum up on QT.

 

[Hooped Wizard]

But it all stemmed from leaving the EU.

If the public vote us out in 2017, then they have nothing to fight. If we stay in, they can't deliver the key first stage of their plan.

SNP couldn't deliver their first stage either.

They gained 50 seats.

 

[HertsWolf]

Never ceases to amaze me how when talking about pressures on housing some people happily blame it all on on mass immigration and make no mention whatsover about the failure of successive governments to undertake a proper social housing building programme.

The implicit assumption has been, from the 80s until the last few years, that the private sector would build the houses that everyone needs.
What I find curious is that there are still many houses sitting empty in towns and villages across the country. A report by Cardiff University on four former coal-mining areas (St Helens, Easington, Mansfield, Cynon Valley) indicated that empty houses were a problem in all four places. Most of these houses will be delapidated and with poor facilities, but surely it would be cheaper to regenerate than build on greenfield sites? Not everyone wants to live in these places, but with a balanced economic development programme, more people would provide more jobs that would encourage more people...

 

[Aber gas]

The implicit assumption has been, from the 80s until the last few years, that the private sector would build the houses that everyone needs.
What I find curious is that there are still many houses sitting empty in towns and villages across the country. A report by Cardiff University on four former coal-mining areas (St Helens, Easington, Mansfield, Cynon Valley) indicated that empty houses were a problem in all four places. Most of these houses will be delapidated and with poor facilities, but surely it would be cheaper to regenerate than build on greenfield sites? Not everyone wants to live in these places, but with a balanced economic development programme, more people would provide more jobs that would encourage more people...

It's a great idea , certainly better than the current policy of allowing massive private developements with a token social housing element . It's the sort of socially responsible, civic minded project that used to happen in Britain . Not sure there is an appetite for it currently .

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I thought social housing paid for itself many times over? I don't see why the state shouldn't just become a massive landlord and start building loads of dense mid-rise housing.

 

[Aber gas]

I thought social housing paid for itself many times over? I don't see why the state shouldn't just become a massive landlord and start building loads of dense mid-rise housing.

That used to be the case . I grew up in a council house as did a lot of people over 30 . In the eighties and ninetys there was a massive sell off of council owned property and the stock that wasn't sold was transferred or " out sourced " to housing associations. The argument at the time was that the private sector would fill the gap but that clearly hasn't happened . I agree with you about the government intervening but I can't see it currently .