Sorry Piskie, but much of what you said is the usual dogmatic piffle repeated ad infinitum in an attempt to try and paint UKIP supporters as nothing more than knuckle dragging racists. I will vote UKIP and yet I do not believe England should only be for the English, nor do any of the other UKIP supporters I know. I am also in favour of continuing our foreign aid contributions - in fact I would raise them when possible. I am also strongly in favour of taking in 'at risk' refugees (not Welsh ones though). As for intelligence or lack of it. If you were on a boat that was built to carry 100 people, would you keep taking passengers even though the manifest was approaching 200? The smart person would say enough's enough. Those 'not so intelligent' would keep piling everyone aboard whilst wondering why the water was up to their necks. I also think immigration is a good thing, as it has proven to be during our history, but the numbers need to be kept manageable rather than leave the gang plank unattended so that we all end up sopping wet like the lefties and 'not so intelligent' would have us be.
The 'flood' analogy when it comes to immigration, is the usual dogmatic piffle. I also think that Western countries need to look at their foreign policies and economic impact in countries where people are displaced and seeking to leave. Take Syria and the middle east for example, ISIS and murderous extremists have been allowed to fester because the UK and her Allies completely destabilised the area after two wars in Iraq and a decade long war in Afganistan. For what ? Oil, Power and strategic influence. It's all very well moaning about Asylum seekers coming here, but you have to look at the conditions that have created displaced peoples in the first place.
If you must lie in such a poor effort to support your case, at least try to make a better hash of it. I made it very clear in my post that I also welcome asylum seekers. Always have, always will. What I moaned about was your wanting to nail the doors open and let everyone in, regardless of their reason for wanting to be here and our ability to cope with their numbers. If you're so staunchly in favour of such a policy, why not open your house to as many of the homeless as can cram themselves into every corner of every room? It would be very worthy of you. Don't let the fact that you and your family would probably have nothing to eat within a month put you off. I will also take this opportunity to 'remind' you ( I use the word 'remind' because I know full well that you are already aware of the fact) that UKIP are also against our country's being no more than pawns in America's 'war by proxy' strategy.
Where did I say that I would 'nail open' the doors ? Also what part of the UK foreign policy that I have cited is a lie ?
Your response to those saying the UK should control the numbers entering our country suggests that they are unintelligent white supremacists... Secondly, who said you lied about foreign policy? Your accusation that I was moaning about asylum seekers is the blatant lie. You repeat the same lies as many anti UKIP sheeple because you have zero chance of winning your argument by being honest and you know that if you keep repeating the same lies, some of them will stick.
I'm still unsure as to what this whole immigration problem is. First of all, migration from outside of the EU has gone down. It is inside the EU where there has been so much and understandably so, but I don't see a problem with the freedom of movement (and considering we are part of the EU). If these immigrants are making a valuable contribution to society - and the statistics show that they are - I don't see what the problem is. I mentioned this before on another thread, but more Britons take money out in state benefits in foreign countries compared to the foreigners that come here. The main reason why immigrants come to the UK is because of the increase in jobs but the irregular hours/low paid wages that the government has introduced. Most UK citizens know that they can't survive on this, hence the increase in the use of food banks and food/working-age poverty, but I would wager that immigrants will take whatever they can get and work whatever hours/shifts they have to to provide for their families back home. There are so many issues that we face at the moment and immigration should be towards the bottom of the list. As a UK citizen that is Muslim and is of Pakistani/Indian descent, I don't think UKIP's policies are racist per se (although they do attract a lot of bigots and racists due to the misconceptions of UKIP), but I do think their main policies are wrong and illogical. Why you would want to vote for them is completely beyond me. The constraints and dynamics of this scenario are completely different in comparison to an entire country. It is a weak analogy. Especially when you consider that there would be a lot less people living on the streets if the incumbent government had met their housing targets and didn't push the prices up so highly, so we would able to afford to accommodate them.
Exactly this. It's not the fault of immigrants that our NHS, housing and public services are at breaking point. It's the unchecked profiteering of bankers and corporations that have collapsed a huge hole in our public finances (£85bn bank bailout and £80bn missing in corporate tax dodging) Nobody is saying have unregulated and unchecked immigration. But blaming the immigrants, unemployed and low paid for the country's problems is exactly what the rich ruling class want, because it deflects the blame away from them. They are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the ordinary working man and many are falling for it.
To be fair the bank bailout resulted in the government becoming large shareholders in the banks, which over time are sold off at a profit. So whilst it might not have been the most effective way of spending the funds or give us much choice in the matter, it will return a profit for the taxpayer.
Here's my 2 cents, we live in a globalised world, sorry folks, people are going to have to get even more used to immigrants and seeing people of different cultures-nationalities-creeds, that's just life, we are becoming more and more globalised as each day rolls by, and there's nothing that's going to roll that back. I'm not in London anymore, but don't see why everyones mad about Polish-Romanian migrants? Have you seen their gorgeous women? you should be welcoming them in with open arms.
I blame immigrants,gays,Muslims, Jews,Pikeys,benefit scroungers.the so called sick,the so called disabled,old people and anyone else who isn't North European & Christian for all the World's problems but like Nigel Farage I'm not a racist,homophobe or Islamaphobe
Really ? You don't think an £85bn hole in the economy is going to affect public services ? It's the entire rationale behind the austerity measures. The sale from shares will go nowhere near to paying back the amount that taxpayers had to bail the banks out. And what about corporate tax dodgers too? The Tories and their cronies have allowed them to rob the treasury to the tune of £80bn We spend £135bn on our entire health care provision in the UK. The hole left by the criminal bankers and CEOs (which we are all paying for through austerity and huge cuts to public services) could have paid for our entire NHS budget and still had enough left over to build new hospitals and schools. It's a ****ing outrage that people allow themselves to be suckered into the lies that it's immigrants that are causing the strain on the NHS, whilst the rich, greedy ****ers still continue to pay themselves huge wages and massive bonuses.
Yes really, the government will make a profit on the bailout. It'll be over a period of time rather than a giant sell off, this is already successfully happening. As I said it wasn't necessarily the most effective use of public funds or what we would have chosen to use the money on but it will turn a profit for the taxpayer in the long run. So whilst it has caused short term problems the bailout was a good long term solution to the banking situation. As for tax dodgers I agree, everyone should pay there fair share of tax and corporations shouldn't be able to avoid paying there share too. This is definitely an area that needs to be looked at. I don't agree with your last line about wages and bonuses though, a private company should be able to pay the market rate for it's employees and in certain jobs this means paying large sums of money.
The government hasn't made a profit on any of the stocks its sold in the banks yet - which is part of the problem, it's propped up the financial system (understanable) but they've not fixed the inherent errors in the system, or the corruption, and have ended up paying to prop up the system, while the profits goes to huge multinationals banking organisations, which the government has failed to break up (so that they are not too big to fail), and failed to legislate.
I'm sorry mate, but this is rubbish. The Taxpayer and the Treasury will be out of pocket because of the bailout, even with the share sale. The reason is two fold. Firstly the shares are not worth anywhere what they were when the banks were first bailed out. For example shares in RBS were purchased for £46bn in 2007 and in 2014 had a market value of £28bn. If the Govt sell the shares now they are making a huge loss. The Tories will tell you that they have raised £500m or so this financial year for the sale of shares in publicly owned sectors of the banks, but the equivalent market value of those shares when they were bought by the Govt to bail them out was almost double, so they have made a loss. The second reason is that the Govt had to drastically increase their borrowing via Gilts to finance the bailout. So with even more debt (at interest, to a private corporation who generate the cash, but that's another story) the UK taxpayer will be paying off the loans / suffering further cuts to public spending to finance the loans to bail the failed banks out. As of March 2014, the govt had recovered £14bn from the banks from the sale of shares, recovery of loans and other finance deals. This figure falls way short of even the amount it cost to finance the bailout terms in the first place (loans, shares etc) let alone the capital figure of £85bn that was spent saving the arses of the greedy gamblers, who to this day still pay themselves huge wages and bonuses - for what ? to leave a gaping hole in the public purse which means that public spending is slashed and idiots like UKIP thrive because they'd rather blame it on immigrants. The whole thing stinks and I think you're very naive to think that it's a good deal for UK Taxpayers.
The government will turn a profit on the share price over a longer period of time. This has already started to happen with shares of Lloyds which reached a level higher than the bailout price in 2013 and the same will happen for RBS, it will take time but it will happen. It was the right choice to bail out the banks and it will return a profit to the taxpayer on the bailout figure. What was your alternative method to deal with the banking crisis? You'd have let the banks fail? You may think I have a naive view that's up to you, I studied economics at university, bought my first property at 21 and started my own business last year. I'd like to think I have a decent grasp of economic concepts even if you don't agree with my optimism in regards to the banking share price!
I agree it was the right thing to do to bail out the banks, but I doubt very much we'll make a profit on the shares once their all sold. We should have regulated them much tighter afterwards but again, all recommendations (from official reports) against the powerful are always ignored...
