Any UKIP supporters on here? What exactly are you voting for?

(796 Posts)
chicaguapa Fri 03-May-13 07:44:45

I confess I don't know what the UKIP policies are, but wondered if the people voting for them could explain to me what they are please. Thanks.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 08:32:48

We're not voting in these elections but I am nosey interested so if people bring it up I am happy to be nosier listen.

I know a few Labour and Tory voters who have both been of the firm opinion that this time they are voting against the Tories (for obvious reasons due to austerity) or against Labour who they blame for not coming up with any alternatives that anyone seems to know about.

Most are also more anti-EU than ever. The EU isn't exactly confidence inspiring at the moment and many people seem to think things are bad enough here as it is without getting any closer to countries that are even worse off than we are.
Plus immigration numbers. Purely the numbers from what people have said as opposed to racist rants (I thankfully haven't had any of those). We're in London and have a school place crisis (100,000+ children will be without a place soon) and the elections have taken place just after thousands of people have found out they can't get into their local primary schools as they are all full up. It is bad timing in that sense.

It seems to be a protest vote for many rather than active UKIP support but UKIP do seem to have an appeal to both Labour and Tory voters (for differing reasons). In the past, protest votes have mainly hindered one main party only. Somehow UKIP seem to appeal to the disaffected on all sides which is why they are now the second party in some urban Labour areas as well as Tory ones I guess. I wasn't surprised to hear about the shift towards them knowing how many people have said they're voting for them.

meddie Fri 03-May-13 09:43:37

My mum will be voting UKIP (she is in her late 60's). Nothing I can say to her will sway her. Her reasons are all those spouted by the typical Daily mail reader. You may see a pattern,

1) Immigration taking traditional working class jobs and pushing down wages.
2) Immigrants using our NHS.
3) Immigrants forcing their culture onto us at the expense of english culture.
4) Not being allowed to follow traditional english ways of living without fear of offending immigrants.
5) Immigrants buying up the housing stock and becoming BTL landlords and charging high prices for squalid properties
6)Immigrants are corrupt and fiddling benefits or just claiming benefits despite not contributing to the pot.
7) 'thousands' of immigrants sending Child benefit back to their countries and they probably don't even have kids (her exact words)
5) EU taking all our money and forcing stupid rules on us.

None of the above are my views, nothing I can say, or figures I give her will alter her perception. Every news article about a large family of Somalians in a posh London house reinforces her beliefs.

She was always a traditional labour supporter, she doesnt recognise that party any more and feels the 3 major party's are liars and cheats and corrupt. She doesnt care about any of the policies that affect working women or the disabled because she is neither of those.

Ukip have spoken to her in a way no other party has, because she is uninformed, disinterested in actually finding the truth and believes everything the DM says. She is their prime target

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 09:55:13

Many voters in the UK are older voters - the % of voters over 55 is growing very quickly.
Older voters are more likely to turn out to vote (much more likely in the case of over 65's)

A recent SAGA survey showed:
UKIP is supported by 1/5 older people
UKIP is now the second favourite party of older people (only the Tories get more support from that age group)
UKIP is supported by 21% of older men

Given the extent of 'grey power' in the UK, it is not surprising that their shift to UKIP has had such a strong influence on outcomes

lainiekazan Fri 03-May-13 09:55:51

Where I live UKIP have done very well - and there are barely any immigrants here.

I think people feel that both main parties are high-handed and London-centric. Neither side seems to offer any charismatic leadership option which, rightly or wrongly, people favour.

I know some people who are voting UKIP as a protest vote against all the other otions (who do indeed suck), but this really worries me. If enough people do it, they may actually gain some power. My DH is an immigrant, they have awful hateful policies against the disabled (even more so than the Tories! shock.

I wish with all my heart that there was actually a viable alternative to the Tories and Labour. A few of us hoped that the Lib Dems would step up in the last election, but look how that went. hmm

It's scary that people are so desperate for change that they are turning to a party with very worrying policies indeed.

CogitoErgoSometimes Fri 03-May-13 10:10:53

I'm not a UKIP supporter and was horrified when my best friend said she was voting for them in Lincolnshire because 'there are too many foreigners'....

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 10:13:44

Annie - UKIP as a universal protest vote is new.
Protest voting is normally more divided. Some who were disaffected with the main parties voted Green or UKIP or BNP or even Lib Dem.
Now it seems that disaffected people on the left and the right have both turned to UKIP. Normally disaffected Tories would never go the same way as disaffected Labour supporters but this time they have.

Protest votes mid term (i.e. long before a General Election) though are seen more of a way to shake up the establishment. To force Labour to talk tougher on immigration as the leaders have started to do. Or get the Tories to win back their supporters by talking up the EU referendum.
Protest swings like this don't mean we'll be in a UKIP coalition by 2015. In general elections, people tend to go back to voting for their main parties again especially if the mid term surprises have forced Labour and Tories to address the issues bothering people more clearly.

RichManPoorManBeggarmanThief Fri 03-May-13 10:18:40

I only know a few. They are all older people and their beef is with the EU. They basically want to be like Switzerland.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 10:21:05

We've been labour,lib dem for a longtime.Parents Tories.

All of us were looking at Ukip.

Dp and I for a variety of reasons.

First- there is nobody else to vote for.Lib Dems lied to us and will never get our vote again(although Vince Cable as leader would lead to us at least maybe considering them).Labour's economic policy and weak leadership are a deep concern.Tories hammer the middle and families,are very anti Sahp and just look after their voters.

We are also fed up with Eton/ Oxbridge privileged politicians.Sooooo utterly sick of them.

The patronising attitude towards Farage by the Tories.

Anything that would annoy the Tories is a plus.

The Europe issue.

We are looking for a party that helps the middle.

Ukip would get rid of Uni fees.

We felt (dp and I) Ukip was a best fit.

My parents are livid with the Tories for hammering families,their anti Sahp stance,the CB unfairness,the way they look after their own,their lack of thought put into all policies,lack of growth,libraries etc.

Out of all of us I was the only one that chickened out of voting Ukip. I didn't like the Ukip flyer.All it said was that they'd help high street businessconfused,I want a bit more flesh on their policies.So voted Green.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 10:22:30

Other 3 all voted Ukip.

Viviennemary Fri 03-May-13 10:24:45

I think the main appeal is that they are not Conservative, Labour or LD. A lot of people feel their interests are not being served by those parties. LD was a reasonable alternative until their total lies about student loans.

Blueskies' post sums up my assumptions about why people are voting UKIP. There are just no other options left. But really.... UKIP? They are BNP-lite!

Impala77 Fri 03-May-13 10:28:22

I'm 37 and I have voted UKIP because the other mainstream parties don,t listen to the people. I am not racist and it isn't racist to worry about the increasing population of this tiny country, my child can't get into the local school, there are no jobs, no houses and the nhs is swamped. These are REAL problems, and I personally worry for my childrens future in this country. But as soon as you mention immigration someone shouts you down as a dirty filthy bigot or racist!!! I'm sick of it to be honest and now all of a sudden UKIP are being portrayed as racists because the other parties are scared that they are getting votes and instead of asking themselves why? they just use the good old racism card to shut down any debate.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 10:33:17

Actually I think the 'BNP'lite' headlines have harmed the other parties more than UKIP

Labour has come out and said immigration policy was badly handled when they were in power and people are right to be concerned about it. They have outlined the tougher measures they will take on this issue. It is now O.K for people to say they are concerned about the effects on the economy and they are getting fed up with the hint that any interest or opinion on immigration controls (which every country in the world has!) equates to being a racist.

Ditto comments about clowns and loonies and all the rest. The Tories did themselves no favours by fighting UKIP on the basis that anyone who votes for them is a racist nutter. People don't like being talked down to or having mud slinging replace policy debates.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 10:35:36

Impala I totally agree.

I also have to say when Farage is interviewed he is the only one ever to actually answer a question.Utterly sick of the Condems non answering.

Families and young people are getting hammered,if we are to compete with the grey vote and get policies that help us we all have to vote.

Sorry but Ukip offer the best future for my children at the moment.

If further down the line when flesh is put on their policies I see things of deep concern they won't get my vote.At the moment I'm seeing a lot I do like( alongside smears )so I'm proceeding slow but cautious.

somebloke123 Fri 03-May-13 10:35:56

I am reminded of a definition of racist by the US economist Thomas Sowell (who himself happens to be black) as "a conservative who is winning an argument with a liberal".

tribpot Fri 03-May-13 10:38:18

Not being allowed to follow traditional english ways of living without fear of offending immigrants.

I hadn't realised that morris dancing and dry stone walling were under such threat. This is good to know.

LtEveDallas Fri 03-May-13 10:44:26

I didn't and wouldn't vote UKIP. I'm female, with a female DSD and female DD. I owe it to them NOT to vote for a party that will make things measurably WORSE to be a woman in the workplace.

(and I don't understand why any female would TBH)

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 10:47:07

somebloke - yes I think that is exactly the point.
In the last GE campaign, the Mrs Duffy-gate incident focused a lot of minds. Basically many people are worried about immigration and population numbers in general because of all sorts of problems that come to the fore in hard economic times.

They were pretty horrified or upset that expressing such concerns leads them to be dismissed as bigots and racists.

The term racist (I know GB didn't actually say that word) is a powerful and awful label to apply to somebody and a bunch of Westminster politicians telling a large chunk of society that they're mindless bigots doesn't tend to win votes. More than half of people polled recently in fact worry about the effects of immigration so to write them all off as loons (or worse) doesn't seem to be a great tactic in winning support.

wasabipeanut Fri 03-May-13 10:49:48

A woman who voted UKIP called in to The Wright Stuff and opened the conversation with 'I'm not a racialist Mathew but...." That says plenty I think.

I can see exactly how UKIP have mopped up the protest vote and I do think the Tories cocked up by insulting them in the way they did. However their policies (if anybody who voted for them actually cared about them) are barking. Quadrupling defence spending? Restoring universal CB? Lovely but who will pay? If you subject their policies to the slightest scrutiny you see huge black holes. Not even Labour are saying they would spend that much money!

I'm sorry but it's just, well, silly. The fact that they did as well as they seem to have done is due to the dismal state of the other parties. It's all utterly depressing.

RooneyMara Fri 03-May-13 10:50:01

any vote that's not for the conservatives is a good vote, unless it's a vote for ukip, in which case that's just stupid.

Everyone knows what they really stand for. the rest is spin to make them sound reasonable.

But people want to believe it because the other options are a bit shit.

I voted labour fwiw

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 10:50:21

Or as Alexis McAvoy put it (a Conservative councillor from Hampshire County Council who lost her seat to UKIP last night):

"David Cameron says he’ll have a referendum, but no-one believes a word he says. I don’t believe a word he says, and I’m a lifelong Conservative. For some unknown reason, David Cameron and his advisers seem to think that a lot of Conservative voters’ values are out-of-date and need to be modernised and thrown out."

And she's a Tory!

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 10:51:13

LtEve how will they make things worse in the workplace?<interested>

Have to say the Condems have made things worse for women who want a career break in order to be a Sahp. I want my dd to have a choice.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 10:53:42

Was the universal CB was a huge Ukip tick for all of us.

The utter unfair,bonkers policy the Tories bought in saves buggar all.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 10:57:11

I think that is another group the Tories have lost. People are still really angry about the Child Benefit policy. Not the fact wealthy people are losing benefits as such (although I suppose that might annoy some) but the clear distinction that works against SAHPs on much lower incomes than families where both parents work for a much higher combined income.

Even people who are SAHPs and haven't lost their benefit (because their spouse earns below the threshold) are angry about it in the message is sends out to people doing what they want or what they see as the best thing for their family.

I don't know if that would benefit Labour or UKIP though - I don't know if any party says it will change or overturn this.

RooneyMara Fri 03-May-13 10:59:37

'I'm 37 and I have voted UKIP because the other mainstream parties don,t listen to the people.'

you've fallen for the oldest line in the book

wasabipeanut Fri 03-May-13 11:01:57

It's just too easy though. I'm no fan of the Condems either but I'm sure if there was a way of making himself more popular by spending money George Osborne would be first in line. Even the Tories know that if you take money away from people they tend not to vote for you.

I just think if it was as easy as Farage & co. claim somebody would have done it by now.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 11:05:12

There is a long and ignoble tradition of facist, racist parties doing well when countries are in bad economic times and without credible mainstream politicians. Very worrying to see that playing out in the UK.

Also very disheartening for Labour to start playing to the (racist) gallery by saying their immigration policies were too lax, because it just gives the racists more grist for their nasty little mills.

RooneyMara Fri 03-May-13 11:05:45

never vote for a twat. Whatever they promise you, because simply put, they are a twat, so their promises mean nothing. They will screw you over.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 11:06:11

wasabipeanut - the advantage of being a small (protest) party is that you don't have to have all the answers. You are looking for influence not overall power.
Parties like Labour however have suffered because, like UKIP a lot of their policies are unknown to voters or are seen to not stack up but, unlike UKIP, they cannot get away with this. They have a genuine shot at taking power so they need more meat on the bones than smaller parties do to convince people to vote for them.

PetiteRaleuse Fri 03-May-13 11:09:36

The far right got +/- 20% of the votes at the last French elections and generally get 15% and more. Most French people who vote for them would say they are not racist but...

The problem is the French far right, and the UKIP, have had a makeover to make them more palatable to ordinary voters who are fed up of the mainstream parties.

You don't have to scratch very far under candidates' skin to get to the real point of their politics, which is fear and hatred of aything that doesn't conform to the white middle-working class ideal. I watched a very interesting documentary on French TV a few weeks ago where someone went in with a hidden camera to one of the closed meeting and the jokes they told and the comments they made between themselves were beyond vile. There have been many examples of murkiness in various UKIP candidates past aswell.

If you compare the 'manifesto' of the French Front National and the UKIP there are almost no differences.

It is very frightening. We know what happens when extremism takes hold. And when poltical parties play on mistrust of those funny foreigners, and people get sucked into it, it is a very dangerous downward spiral.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 11:11:52

Unfortunately many did vote for a twat which is why we have DC and GO.

The least twatish politician interviewed increasingly these days is Nigel Farage. He really does hold his own in a debate,he listens,answers the question,seems to have a sense of humour and rarely loses his cool.

So refreshing after the past 2 years of toff,question avoiding,we're all in it together,call me Dave rhetoric.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 11:13:04

Walison - not just Labour. ALL major parties are now keen to be seen to be tough on immigration.
Immingration is a policy which more than half of all voters hold concerns over - including the very youngest voters - all age groups in fact. In any democracy, there has to be a place to discuss immigration controls without racism coming into it and without people being fearful of being labelled racist.
People deeply dislike being called racists (well actual racists may not mind I suppose) so have kept their views to themselves. But in the ballot booth, they can freely express what they think. And if only UKIP will come out and cover the issue for them, then that's how they'll vote. The main parties must engage with the issue too simply because the majority of the electorate have varying views on it that they wish to be represented.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 11:13:28

"Funny foreigners"hmm

RooneyMara Fri 03-May-13 11:14:50

Yes Blue he has got the charm offensive down to a tee. Do you really believe that this affable image is the real deal?

FreedomOfTheTess Fri 03-May-13 11:15:52

UKIP = BNP Lite.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 11:18:00

Conservatives have just Tunbridge Wells East to Ukip

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 11:18:12

just lost

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 11:18:47

At the moment,yes.

The charm offensive(and lies) given by the other 3 main parties have shown their cracks.

Only time will tell with Ukip.

LtEveDallas Fri 03-May-13 11:18:50

Hi Blueskies, amongst other things, UKIP wants to abolish statuatory maternity leave and abolish legislation that prohibits discrimination of women of child bearing age in the workplace

I also don't agree with the flat tax rate of 31% and abolition of higher tax bands - lets make the rich richer hey? Even moreso than the bloody Cons.

Oh and their attitude in fracking ("just sacremongering") is ridiculous as well, but then that's from a party that has previously claimed that fossil fules can be renewed WTF? grin

LazyMonkeyButler Fri 03-May-13 11:20:18

We had only 4 candidates here (v safe Conservative area). Had I had the choice of voting Green or for an Independant I believed in then maybe I would have.

That said, I have never been a supporter of being "in Europe" (although geographically we always will be), so I suppose I do agree with more UKIP policies than Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem at this moment in time.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 11:25:19

Hmmm not keen on the maternity leave policy,will need keeping an eye on and weigh it up across all 4 main party policies during the next 2 years.

RooneyMara Fri 03-May-13 11:26:44

Jesus Tunbridge wells? That's a short train ride from here.

This is quite frightening. If I were an immigrant living in the UK I'd be seriously scared at what this turn of events would encourage/legitimise.

slug Fri 03-May-13 11:27:17

Blueskies. From the UKIP manifesto:

"UKIP proposes to vastly simplify this legislation. It would be up to each employer to decide whether to offer parental leave and this would be one of the items included in the standard employment contract (see above). An SME which refuses to offer parental leave will either have to offer young women higher salaries than other businesses which offer a long leave period or simply have to recruit from a smaller pool of potential employees.

UKIP accepts that there is a tension between helping young families at a time when they have to accept a significant fall in income and improving the employment prospects of young women while reducing the compliance burden and costs on businesses.

But, on close inspection, the rules on SMP are simply ridiculous. Paying SMP is primarily the liability of the employer, but large employers can reclaim 92% and small employers can recover 104.5% of the cost by reducing their monthly PAYE payments accordingly9.

UKIP is in favour of simplifying the welfare system and reducing wasteful bureaucracy. Rather than playing the ‘money-go-round’ with the attendant administrative burden, UKIP would abolish SMP entirely and simply allow parents who stay at home with their children to claim a weekly parental allowance set at the same level as the Basic Cash Benefit proposed in our welfare policy (in other words, around £64 per week for parents aged 25 and above) regardless of how long they are off work and regardless of the other spouse’s income."

So, translated, no maternity leave unless your employer wants to give it to you. If they don't offer maternity leave they will either have to offer women more money <<I can hear the howls of laughter from here>> or simply not employ women.

Despite the fact that SMPs can reclaim 104% of Statutory maternity pay, this is obviously a ridiculous situation and it's best simply not to employ women of childbearing age.

And, to add insult to injury:

"The same principles would be applied to Statutory Sick Pay, Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay. The taxpayer would pay for a basic level of £64 a week, but this would be dealt with as part of the welfare system with no need for employer involvement."

So if you are a woman it's OK to discriminate in your employment practices because women might get pregnant. And if you are ill then 64 quid a week is all you can expect.

sieglinde Fri 03-May-13 11:27:27

Don't want to jump on the UKIP people, but how is all this - universal CB, free unis - going to be funded? The Uk actually makes money from the EU, and evil immigrants like me - who have paid Uk taxes for 20+ years - are not soaking up money so much as putting it into the economy.

exexpat Fri 03-May-13 11:29:05

This is quite an interesting analysis of what's going on with UKIP. End result could be resurgence of a more right-wing Conservative party?

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 11:29:47

Rooney you're being over dramatic.

Slug thanks that's interesting,will keep a eye on that particular policy.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 11:31:40

Sieg the cuts to universal CB have saved little and cost money to administer which is exactly their reason for not touching WFA.

exexpat Fri 03-May-13 11:32:18

Sieglinde - I think the basic answer is that it can't be funded. Ukip's manifesto is vote-winning pie in the sky and would never work if they actually had to budget for it. But luckily (I hope) they will never get close enough to power to have to try.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 11:32:24

PetiteRaleuse, I agree that it's very worrying. Like I said, these kind of parties have a history of taking advantage of poor economic situations and political vacuums. The UK is heading into dangerous waters.

Xenia Fri 03-May-13 11:32:41

Until we leave the EU the UKIP cannot remove laws which we have to have under EU law. SSP and SMP - does not matter whether the employer or the state pays them surely if you get the money? SMP is only 6 weeks at 90% opay. After that most people cannot afford to live on the amount they pay unless they saved up so plenty of us are back in 6 weeks under current law.

Sick pay - the first 3 days is unpaid under current law and after that at a very low rate. Some employers choose to pay more but not all.

I am not a UKIP supporter, but you can see people using it as a protest vote and the impact my be as Farage suggested on R4 this morning that other parties will have to take on board their policies as he said accurately that Blair did because of the SDP threat - Labour adopted CDP policies, ditched the left and although yes Labour got in it was really the SDP policies.

I am sure UKIP has not costed most of its policies. I like the idea of a 33% flat tax which I think merges with NI.

Orwellian Fri 03-May-13 11:33:50

I think the UKIP are seen as a protest vote by a lot of people (just to qualify, I wouldn't vote at all at the moment as I don't believe in any of the parties or anything they say).

I think there is real, deep felt anger at the way the main parties (Lab, Lib Dems, Cons) seem to look down at the voters, say one thing in their manifesto but do another and just generally have an arrogance about them that originates from a political class that is currently bred in Oxbridge and has very little experience of the real world or real worries. Let's face it, how many current politicians will have to worry about housing or their childrens education or a pension - very few. I also think that politicians these days seem to be very much career politicians and will cosy up to business or unions who will help them further their career once they have left office. Very few seem genuinely concerned in doing what is right for the country but rather make policies (or change policies) to ensure they are re-elected. They all seem very cynical, immoral, grabbing and untrustworthy.

UKIP appeals because people know what it stands for (even if it does ride on one main policy) as opposed to the Tories or Labour who don't seem to stand for anything at the moment and have become red-Tories, blue-Labour with policies that many people don't really worry too much about such as gay marriage or windfarms.

People mostly vote UKIP because people don't like being told not to do something and people hate the whole "you're racist if you oppose unlimited immigration" because they see for themselves that it is not a racism issue but rather an issue of overcrowding, pressure on public services, school places, the NHS which the big parties are currently putting their heads in the sand about for some reason, when the reality is very dire for a lot of people.

fluffiphlox Fri 03-May-13 11:33:55

I don't know why anyone would vote for them. And Farage always seems too pleased with himself and just a little bit thick. Last general election they were canvassing around here and the man that came to our door was the sort of bearded, beblazered, patronising, stumpy fool who would buy you a nice half or a sweet sherry and call you 'young lady'. No ta.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 11:34:16

sieglinde - the benefit of being a protest party is that you don't have to take charge and run the country. You don't have to have a master plan all costed out.
You get votes and use this to force the main parties to change their policies more in line with what you want.
UKIP support has already forced Labour for example to be tougher on immigration.

A bit like the Greens. All main parties are now against air pollution and pro recycling in a way they might not be were it not for the public support demonstrated in years of elections backing Green policies.

Rooney - The result was the Conservatives lost Tunbridge Wells East to Ukip: 1,386 to 1,005.

LtEveDallas Fri 03-May-13 11:35:56

Blueskies, what about this for a quote from a UKIP MEP:

Godfrey Bloom (UKIP MEP since 2004) has notoriously declared: *No selfrespecting
small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a
lady of child-bearing age*

He applied for a place on the Women’s Rights
Committee of the European Parliament, saying *I am here to represent Yorkshire
women who always have dinner on the table when you get home. I am going to
promote men’s rights.*

He wanted to deal with women’s issues because I just don’t think they clean behind the fridge enough.

Mr Bloom later said that employers should not “waste” money training pregnant
staff, and added *Women don’t need protection nowadays – they’re the ones ruling
the roost.*

And, of course, every single UKIP MEP is a white, middle-aged, middle-class
male.

I won't do that to my girls...

exexpat Fri 03-May-13 11:38:45

Godfrey Bloom is the MEP who thinks he can disprove allegations of misogyny by putting pictures on his website of him posing with anonymous adult women, tagged 'Godfrey and the girls'.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 11:39:25

Hmmmm the other 3 have pretty much shat all over my 3 children.<sigh>

Orwellian's post was spot on.

LtEveDallas Fri 03-May-13 11:39:35

Sorry, that was a C&P from a PDF that didn't quite work smile. You get the jist I hope.

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 03-May-13 11:47:22

The UKIP wouldn't be the best choice for my child. To say the least.

ihategeorgeosborne Fri 03-May-13 11:48:57

The child benefit policy alone ensures that I will never vote tory again. We haven't had local elections where we are, but I am much cheered that the current useless lot of incumbents are getting a good kicking country wide.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 11:50:12

But the point is over 1/4 of votes in areas where UKIP stood went to UKIP.

It is no good saying people are mad to vote for such a nutty party - that's pretty much what Labour and the Tories have said all along but the fact remains people are voting for them and this should not be dismissed as 'people don't know what's good for them'

In a democracy, people have ways to make their views heard. They are generally a bit more radical in mid-term elections than the 'real thing' of a General Election but even so, 26% in the areas they stood is huge. It may change as more results come in but just dismissing such a shift is missing the point that something about UKIP's message is speaking to people in a way that other parties just haven't managed and more importantly, they seem to be able to appeal not just to the right but to many on the left as well. That is a very significant achievement for a small party to make and there are reasons that so many disaffected voters aren’t just switching between the main parties but jumping ship altogether.

Lazyjaney Fri 03-May-13 11:51:14

Turn the OPs question on it's head - what do you think you get for voting for any of the main parties - and you instantly see why people are supporting UKIP.

The main parties have got their heads stuck in the London Chatterati bubble (media, money and MPs) and seem unable to grasp where the rest of the country is, and seem to be churning out policy after policy that makes no sense. Vote Labour, LibDem, Cons - you're just getting the same metropolitan upper middle class professional politicians, all in hoc to the same media and money powers.

RooneyMara Fri 03-May-13 11:51:32

thanks, Tiggy.

Blueskies, no, I'm not being overdramatic.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 11:56:54

Lazy - I think that's about the size of it. People are genuinely stunned that in the middle of very hard times for themselves and their families, all poilitical news concentrates on things they frankly don't give a damn about - wind farms, gay marriage, The Leveson Enquiry.

I'm not saying those issues are unimportant but they just aren't in line with people's list of things to worry about right now.

And the policies that touch on the things they do care about are all disliked - more cuts, more closures and no message from Labour to say whether they'd go along with such cuts, reverse them or do something else altogether.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 11:57:49

I don't think that pointing out when a racist is saying racist things is 'dismissing' them, tiggytape. On the contrary, it is challenging them, which is what one should do with a racist. And just because there are lots of them, doesn't make them right.

Lazyjaney Fri 03-May-13 12:02:35

" Like I said, these kind of parties have a history of taking advantage of poor economic situations and political vacuums. The UK is heading into dangerous waters"

For them to succeed it also requires the main parties to complacently ignore and disparage these movements and issues, and to try and suppress debate.

So carrying on calling everyone you disagree with "Racists" and "Fruitcakes" is just playing into their hands.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 12:04:18

Absolutely Wallison.
But if you define racism as any person who is anti immigration controls - well then you've just branded every major political party and most UK residents as racists. Which doesn't tend to sit well with people.

slug Fri 03-May-13 12:04:39

Does anyone else picture Farrage asking for "A white wine/fruit based drink for the ladies" in a pub?

<<gets coat>>

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 12:06:09

Does gin count as fruit based though - that might affect my answer? It is sort of made from berries isn't it?

RooneyMara Fri 03-May-13 12:06:51

i'm trying to work out which character from the simpsons he most resembles. the man has no lips.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 12:07:42

Rooney - that made me laugh. No lips!

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 12:09:55

Lazyjaney, I am not responsible for the actions of racists being racist.

Tiggy, I would define racist as anyon who is racist. HTH.

Lazyjaney Fri 03-May-13 12:10:55

Tiggy I think the main parties are still largely faffing around with "top of Maslow" issues, ie "first world problems" for well to do and secure parts of the population, whereas the reality of the many is more fundamental "bottom of Maslow" issues like food, shelter, futures for their kids etc.

slug Fri 03-May-13 12:11:45

Surely this one

MoreBeta Fri 03-May-13 12:14:04

I am voting/voted UKIP because I am sick to death of being treated like an idiot by the other parties who have a nice cosy liberal North London intelligensia mindset of a political elite that just isnt relevant to what the country actually needs.

I absolutely agree with what David Starkey said last night on Question Time and good on him for getting right up the noses of the rest of the panelists.

RooneyMara Fri 03-May-13 12:15:03

LOL grin superb!

grimbletart Fri 03-May-13 12:16:02

I am a pensioner. I am not a UKIP supporter. Talking to contemporaries I think one explanation why UKIP seems disproportionately supported by older people is because they are finding it difficult to accept the changes - and the speed of changes - they have witnessed over the last 50 years.

Rightly or wrongly and for good or ill, the England (in particular) that they were familiar with in the 1950s is a 'different' country from the one they now live in and many find this unfamiliarity disconcerting and uncomfortable.

In UKIP I suspect (though I can't prove) they see something harking back to the England of their younger days. I think there is an element of nostalgia for times past, though I totally accept that is likely to be only one of several reasons.

RooneyMara Fri 03-May-13 12:16:13

This is the thing MoreBeta. Lots of people are sick of being treated like idiots, so instead they vote for the disingenuous bunch who are playing on exactly that motivation.

It's not a clever solution tbf

RooneyMara Fri 03-May-13 12:17:12

Grimbletart, thankyou very much for posting that - I had suspected that it might be the case.

It's very understandable, but very sad.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 12:19:37

UKIP makes idiots out of everyone who votes for them. It's hardly a solution.

MoreBeta Fri 03-May-13 12:19:42

"They are all older people and their beef is with the EU. They basically want to be like Switzerland."

Yes. That describes me and frankly I think we could do a version of Switzerland a lot better than Switzerland. We have got a lot more going for us in the UK.

RooneyMara Fri 03-May-13 12:21:46

you said what I was thinking Wallison.

MoreBeta, you won't get Switzerland by putting Farage in charge.

lainiekazan Fri 03-May-13 12:22:19

I agree with the irrelevant issues the main parties seem to like to pursue. I know a county councillor and he was telling me that on doorsteps people were cheesed off about gay marriage - not that they were opposed - they just didn't care, including gay couples. It's low on the list of priorities. Likewise, as others have said, the Leveson Enquiry. Fgs! How many of the ordinary population had their phones hacked? And now we find that certain vested interests are rubbing their hands at the prospect of the curtailing of press freedom (eg MPs and expenses).

And if we're supposed to be a democracy, most people do not relish being told that actually, no, you can't think this or vote that because you can't . [Major parties put fingers in ears and stamp collective feet]

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 12:23:47

What I find even more sad are the alternatives.

1)financial suicide and zero tackling of immigration(labour)
2)the crushing of the middle and advancing of the rich alongside zero tackling of immigration(Tory)
3)lies,crushing of the middle and zero tackling of immigration(Libdem)

MoreBeta Fri 03-May-13 12:24:56

All the Tory party have to do to win back their supporters from UKIP is to promise they are going to have an EU Referendum and pass the legislation before the next election.

Cameron held that promise of an EU Referendum out at the last election then withdrew it once elected and from then on no one trusted him.

duchesse Fri 03-May-13 12:26:53

One of the things I've learned in my life is that you can never go back. You might feel nostalgic for a remembered halcyon time, but even if we withdrew from the EU and did all the things that that rat-faced bloke is promising, we still wouldn't go back to our imagined past. What I think this vote for the fascists UKIP is betraying is dissatisfaction and fear, nothing more. And people want to feel secure again. Sadly UKIP's chances of doing that are less than nil. What we need to do is face the future as grown-ups, not as scared children, and do what we can to help shape. There is no magic solution to anything and sure as eggs is eggs ain't it.

I do wish that all the people grinching about national politics and voting UKIP in some misguided attempt to "show the bastards" would actually get involved in action and policy-shaping at a very local level and help make things happen. Democracy starts very close to home. Get out and join your parish council, your town council and your action groups and start to take part. Don't use your democratic right to vote to inflict vile self-serving bastards punishment on this country.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 12:28:35

Think he'll have to do a bit more than that.

MoreBeta Fri 03-May-13 12:30:05

Tory backbenchers are surely very upset and worried about the result and will be looking to the next European elections and the General election and will ditch Cameron if he does not do something quick to fend off UKIP.

MEPs/MPs worried about losing their seat will not stay loyal.

Plots will thicken in the summer recess and the Tory party may install the new leader by the next party conference. That will be only 18 months before the General Election is due.

Could it be Boris?

merlincat Fri 03-May-13 12:30:20

Having lived in Switzerland for five years and witnessed the breathtaking racism and open xenophobia there I think the average UKIP voter would feel right at home there.

I can't tell you why I would vote for them, because I won't be voting for them. I will tell you why I won't be voting for them though;

UKIP oppose clean renewable energy i.e. wind turbines etc. Instead they want to invest in shale gas fracking and coal fired power stations.

They want to bring back fox hunting.

They want to increase defense spending by 40%, buy nuclear weapons from the US and buy more arms.

They want to cut two million public sector jobs.

They want to introduce vouchers for private health insurance.

They deny climate change and want to ban schools from teaching it, despite overwhelming scientific proof.

They want to get rid of British and European human rights laws.

They want to deport all illegal immigrants with no amnesty, regardless of their circumstances.

They want to scrap the CPS and give the police the power to decide what cases they bring to court.

They want to 'End the promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism' and revise British history education so teachers only show Britain's imperialist past in a positive light.

They want to privatize key NHS services and GPs surgeries.

They want to privatize state schools and colleges.

They oppose same-sex marriage.

They have ties to far-right racist political organizations.

They want to scrap worker's rights i.e. maximum working hours, holiday entitlement, redundancy, sick pay and parental leave.

They want to make it harder for Trade Unions to operate.

They want a flat tax rate which would only benefit the rich.

They want to deny the vote to people who are unemployed.

They are party that has demonstrably shown to be full of sexist, homophobic, abilist, racist and xenophobic idiots, to put it nicely.

They are nothing more than the BNP in suits, they are fascism for posh people and their tagline should be, 'I'm not racist, but.....'

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 12:34:29

I think the entire country is well and truly sick of priveleged Eton/ Bullingdon boys making decisions for those living in the real world.

Sunnywithshowers Fri 03-May-13 12:46:52

I would never vote UKIP. Aside from some of the above (thanks Gruffalo), a few of their candidates have been actively ableist, like the one who thought that all babies with Down Syndrome should be aborted.

I live in a Tory safe seat so it feels like every vote is wasted. But on the council in our area we now have ousted the Tories and have installed Green councillors. grin I'm waiting to hear if we've got a Green in the County Council too.

I don't see what any of the three main parties have to offer these days. They seem like different flavours of the same policies.

Xiaoxiong Fri 03-May-13 12:48:18

Blueskies I've got to say your post above and Gruffalo's post above you are a pretty damning counterpoint.

Maybe it's because I'm one of those evil immigrants who came here and have been paying taxes etc before becoming a naturalised citizen, but I really don't understand what the background of a politician has to do with it - judge them on their policies not on their backgrounds.

If their policies are even half as bad those that Gruffalo outlines then I don't care if UKIP is made up of hard working people who grew up on council estates and went to state schools. The policies are outrageous and disgusting no matter who came up with them.

wreckitralph Fri 03-May-13 12:49:26

Wallison

The country I live in, which incidentally is one of the most successful and well run small countries in the world has, the following hierarchy of entitlement:

Citizens: (born in the country, of many different ethnic backgrounds) or lately, someone who gives up their passport and takes citizenship here. These people have full rights to benefits.

Permanent Residents: Foreigners born in the country or have emigrated there. They have paid into the system for a number of years and have never been entitled to benefits. If they break the law, they are jailed then immediately deported. They do not have as many rights as citizens. They have to renew their application every 5 years.

Residents: working on a work permit, entitled to ZERO benefits, have to pay for own medical (insurance) and schooling. They have to be sponsored by a company in a job that a local cannot fill. They pay tax to the host country. If they break the law, have infectious diseases they have to leave the country. Their children are only entitled to school places after the citizens and PR's have been allocated theirs.

Is this racist or is this sensible?

I think you will find that the majority of people in the UK are not against immigration. We need it. What we need is controlled immigration and a fairer system whereby the people who are born in Britain, have precedence over those who are not. Most other countries bring in people they need, only if they cannot find one of their own to do the job.

If you think that is racist then I can't argue with that. I think that is practical. I think the British people need to see that their needs come first. British people usually keep quiet and carry on. I am afraid that they have been treated with contempt for so long and now they are voting with their feet. That is why they are voting UKIP.

2old2beamum Fri 03-May-13 12:50:42

GruffaloAteMySocks BRAVO!! You have saved me from writing the same

Racist Ignorant Bastards angry

jellybeans Fri 03-May-13 12:56:07

I have no idea what UKIP stand for (haven't looked them up) but I hate all the 'main three' parties, the coalition two the most. I hear many people considering UKIP for the first time due to the anti Sahp stance of the main three and CB. Also many are worried by immigration.

garlicyoni Fri 03-May-13 13:08:26

I've belatedly realised that politics is making my illness worse (!) so - while there's no way I can ignore it - I'm posting before reading the thread, which I will have to do after a nice rest.

I perceive the UKIP gains as a real danger.
I'm taking it for granted that anyone who doesn't understand why I say 'danger' has not really looked into the party's political competence.
I think the Tories have won those seats for UKIP.
Ably assisted by the Mail and Sun, they have fed a steady diet of hate speech to voters.
They've made it acceptable to blame fellow citizens for one's problems, instead of looking to the root causes.
They've made money the only measure of human worth.
They've tricked ordinary people into siding with the rich against their own kind.
They've institutionalised the idea that large sectors of society are not quite human.

Dave, Iain and Gideon have pushed their party's rhetoric so far to the right, it now positively supports UKIP neo-fascism. I think they know this. I would guess they're planning for a ConKIP coalition in 2015; something I find frightening both for political reasons and the evidence that neither party can put a competent government policy together.

flatpackhamster Fri 03-May-13 13:09:44

Wallison

UKIP makes idiots out of everyone who votes for them. It's hardly a solution.

This post, right here, exemplifies the reason UKIP is getting a quarter of the vote. The sheer arrogance of "If you were intelligent you'd vote the same way that I do" and "I know best, because I'm smart, and if you disagree it's not because you've thought through the situation and come to a different conclusion but because of your ignorant, slope-browed petty prejudices." People are sick of that. They've been getting it from politicians in all three parties for a decade and a half - as well as from large sections of the media who look down on them.

kaytola Fri 03-May-13 13:11:35

A Con/Ukip coalition would be a very scary prospect indeed sad

morethanpotatoprints Fri 03-May-13 13:18:36

Anybody I know over 55 are voting for UKIP, I don't blame them tbh.
They see no alternative and as the list on page one have swallowed the propaganda that the media have given regarding immigration.
I believe they will win the next election.

littlepopsy Fri 03-May-13 13:23:32

I think I made a bad choice yesterday. Although I have voted Tory at every election, I just couldn't do it this time. I hate not just what they have done with the power they have but also the way that they have gone about nearly everything. Doing things not in manifesto, back tracking on things that were, cosy meetings (and subsequent policies) with donors, cronyism etc

So yesterday I voted UKIP as a protest vote. Stupid ! I am appalled at their policies and would never ever want them to be in power. I just don't know how else to engage with the political process, and let the Cons know how I feel. I wrote to my MP and she didn't respond!

All very depressing.

UKIP has 0 MPs, 0 councils, 0 MSPs, 0 Assembly members in Wales or London. In 2009 the BNP polled 30%, yesterday they only managed 9%. UKIP may have 62 Councillors, but the GREEN PARTY have 130. Hardly the next political powerhouse.

I'm not that worried about them, yet. People realized that the BNP were a hopeless, hateful, one-issue, clueless bunch of losers and voted them out the first possible opportunity they got, hopefully, that's exactly what will happen to UKIP after people realize what a bunch of witless goons riddled with bigotry they really are.

fluffiphlox Fri 03-May-13 13:34:02

morethanpotatoprints I'm in that age group and there is no way I will be voting for this bunch of dimwit bigots. Thank you, that is all.

ironman Fri 03-May-13 13:45:29

UKIP has been saying what many think, and that is why people are voting for them. In the general election 950,000 voted UKIP. Many feel they don't have a voice on gay marriage, and immigration. Many voted UKIP where I live and I believe most are old Tory voters sick of Cameron, whom many believe is not a Tory, if he was one I would have voted Conservative!
I feel UKIP will be a force to be reckoned with in the future, because most are sick of the lies,spin and shite from the other parties.

boxershorts Fri 03-May-13 13:45:31

UKIP appeal? They are not Lib dem or Tory

ironman Fri 03-May-13 13:54:11

Gruffaloatemysocks. Thank you for your impartial input. So are you saying that 950.000 people are bigots goons etc? You make yourself sound daft, if anyone is a goon surely it's you?
Oh by the way UKIP has been around for over 20 years! The leader of immigration is married to a woman Filipino woman and his agent is married to a women to from the West Indies, both are racists in your book I suppose?
Name calling is so infantile.............yawn.................

PatPig Fri 03-May-13 13:59:18

"In 2009 the BNP polled 30%, yesterday they only managed 9%."

The BNP NEVER polled 30%. In 2009 the BNP polled 6.2% at the Euro elections.

Orwellian Fri 03-May-13 14:00:16

Flatpackhamster - totally agree with what you said about Wallison's comment.

There is a real arrogance in stating that someone is stupid (or more predictably) a racist just because they have a different opinion to you. This is one of the reasons why people are so disillusioned with the 3 main parties, because they belittle and ignore the real worries and concerns of the very people who they are supposed to be representing and dismiss them with these predictable labels rather than bothering to hear why they are voting in a particular way.

shelli135 Fri 03-May-13 14:01:49

They (politicians) are all lying twattish twats..... But the UKIP have a fair point,

Why are the British borders open for immigrants to come and work, when there is a million or so people who already live here out of work?

Do the British unemployed just not want to do the jobs the immigrants will do?

Or is it the employers choosing the cheaper work force?

This discussion could go on forever and everyone has different opinions.

LtEveDallas Fri 03-May-13 14:03:03

ironman,

Did you bother to read any of Guffalo's other posts? You know, the ones where she points out just how many other distasteful policies UKIP has, not just their views on immigration?

(and yes, you do sound like nothing more than a witless Goon, as you have focussed on something that Gruffalo hasn't singled out)

lljkk Fri 03-May-13 14:06:58

Their children are only entitled to school places after the citizens and PR's have been allocated theirs.

That happens in the USA. The migrant worker children simply don't get educated. 'Cause it's so great to have a large underclass of disenfranchised under-educated people in the country, and all.

I know a little bit of background about local UKIP wins. Winner-1 owns a chain of building supplies shops, has a prominent community profile because people use his shops. His manifesto names solar energy, wind energy, incineration of waste (UKIP dislikes all these) and jobs for youth as main issues (wants more apprenticeships by cutting regulations, I mean why would you want regulation of apprenticeships, I ask you, bring back indentured servitude, I say). Nothing about Europe or immigration.

Winner-2 is professional busy-body; his highest profile is in opposing local wind turbine applications anywhere in the county (he writes and funds printing of colour flyers against any application sent to every household). Nothing about Europe or immigration. So locally, UKIP is mostly about opposition to subsidies to renewable energy, that IS their local manifesto. They are the most anti-Green party.

PatPig Fri 03-May-13 14:14:31

UKIP are Jeremy Clarkson types, generally.

Cessj Fri 03-May-13 14:18:57

To be honest, NONE of the parties is worth voting for, because they do not have the interests of the majority population (by which I mean those who are not privileged, not wealthy) and I mean this for Labour and the Condems as well as the Tories (and I'm life-long Labour supporter). Labour are bereft of ideas, and in any case, are to be blamed for actually initiating many of the most controversial and hated of Tory policies (thanks, Tony Blair). UKIP however is NOT the answer. It is fine to spout all kind of attention/vote grabbing ideas when in Opposition but just how they function in reality is difficulty to see. And yes, in my view, UKIP is BNP-Lite.

Pretty sure I didn't say all of UKIPs members are goons, racists or bigots. hmm

The leader of immigration is married to a woman Filipino woman and his agent is married to a women to from the West Indies, both are racists in your book I suppose?

No, I've never accused anyone of being racist for simply being in UKIP. I have only ever pointed out it is a party riddled with far-right xenophobes and racists, which it is. Why is the fact he's married to someone from the West Indies relevant? Smacks of, 'I CAN'T be racist, some of my best friends are black!'

PatPig my mistake, I misread some statistics that a friend linked me about the BNP/UKIP.

I think that my point about the BNP's waning support is still relevant though.

SlimFitWellies Fri 03-May-13 14:30:05

We only had a choice between Tory and UKIP in our ward, which annoyed me immensely. If there had been an independent I would have voted for them.

I also have heard a lot of people (friends/colleagues/neighbours) talking about voting UKIP as a protest or to send a message to the big 3.

ironman Fri 03-May-13 14:32:35

Dallas you said that basically UKIP is full of 'witless goons, riddled with bigotry' Its the sort of response I expect from people who don't want to hear why people vote UKIP. I suppose you think if you slag them off, and insult them long enough they and the supporters voters will go away.
This tactic backfired on the old codger Ken Clarke, it just angered Tory voters and made sure they voted UKIP.

You sound as I would, if I thought the Labour Party had any chance getting into power again, angry......

ironman Fri 03-May-13 14:34:43

Gruffalo, 'quite life' tablets are very good for high blood pressure.......

PatPig Fri 03-May-13 14:35:59

UKIP have been doing well in European Elections since 2004 (they didn't do very well in 1999). In 2009 they were the second largest party.

The BNP have never done as well even as UKIP did in 1999, their support was always overplayed by the meeja, whereas UKIP haven't really been heeded.

Hullygully Fri 03-May-13 14:37:30

I am not a racialamist but they are taking our jobs and their food smells funny

Chipstick10 Fri 03-May-13 14:38:03

I voted ukip in the general election and I will vote for them again. We didn't have a vote ystday.

ComposHat Fri 03-May-13 14:39:43

When people say 'I vote UKIP because the other parties don't listen'

What they mean is that 'I am a lazy twat who can't be bothered engaging my brain to think through any issue, but the UKIP soundbites and unaffordable empty promises chime with what I read in the Daily Mail and my own petty prejudices'

If you think the other parties aren't listening, take some responsibility; write/tweet to your MP, engage with an issue in your community, attend a political meeting.

But no that would require actually doing or knowing something.

Yes, that's exactly what I said if you rip it out of context and deliberately misinterpret it. hmm

People realized that the BNP were a hopeless, hateful, one-issue, clueless bunch of losers and voted them out the first possible opportunity they got, hopefully, that's exactly what will happen to UKIP after people realize what a bunch of witless goons riddled with bigotry they really are.

It's pretty clear I'm talking about councilors there and not every single member of UKIP.

Oh, and you're right, I am absolutely FURIOUS that people are continually ignoring every other policy this party has, regardless of how much it would destroy this country because of one maybe two policies that they agree with and making excuse after excuse for councilors who are continually shown to be unapologetically homophobic, sexist, racist and abilist.

garlicyoni Fri 03-May-13 14:42:16

Hully grin

ironman Fri 03-May-13 14:45:55

Composhat. I agree with what you say (mainly) but you can write to your MP as much as you like, but if they decide on a policy, such as going to war, having mass immigration or anything else, and they don't want to change it they don't. The majority of politicians do not listen to the public, they say they will listen, like the Lib-Dems did on tuition fees, and sign pledges etc; but at the end of the day they do want they want.

feeltheforce Fri 03-May-13 14:47:20

gruffalo they sound just like old school Tories to me.

Chipstick10 Fri 03-May-13 14:47:37

How angry everyone sounds. We live in a democracy and will vote for who ever I like, and I will read any paper I like.

PatPig Fri 03-May-13 14:47:54

UKIP have been re-elected year on year in the EU elections.

Unlike the BNP, they don't lose their seats second time round.

pamish Fri 03-May-13 14:50:32

Voting for a party means voting for the whole platform. UKIP members have called for compulsory abortion for disabled foetuses, compulsory euthanasia for the over 80's, they hate the gay marriage 'diversion', mums should be at home to get dads back into work, benefit claimants are “a parasitic underclass of scroungers”. These are from individual members not party policy, but those individuals have found a home in UKIP. The above are all logical one-step-forward moves from their existing policies. Hopefully this protest vote will wither away but they are very dangerous indeed, don't give them any credence.

feeltheforce In a lot of ways they are like old school Tories

A relevant article for people to read; Is UKIP a party of bigots?

Xenia Fri 03-May-13 14:56:53

They seem to be appealing to quite a few people so it would make sense for the major parties to see what are the issues that people want - small businesses want less regulation, many voters want simple fair flat taxes or whatever the issue is and take account of it.
UKIP are not likely to win the next election, even Farage knows that and nor will the Tories do a deal with UKIP

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 14:57:29

When people say 'I vote UKIP because the other parties don't listen' What they mean is that 'I am a lazy twat who can't be bothered engaging my brain to think through any issue

or alternatively that would apply to people who don't vote at all under the 'they're all as bad as each other' mantra.

People who voted UKIP actively turned out at their polling stations yesterday or actively decided to cast a vote. That isn't lazy anymore than the people who vote Labour because their Dad always did or vote Tory because they want to punish the LibDems.

If the views of 26% of people (in the areas where UKIP stood) are dismissed as lazy, racist or idiotic then where does that leave anybody? What do the main parties do to win back support?
What does that say about a democratic system where people are perfectly entitled to interpret issues and hold views opposite to others?
It just cuts any discussion dead and leaves people feeling less represented so more likely to vote UKIP.

That is why the main parties today have been very polite to UKIP indeed - you can't write off that party without writing off a huge chunk of the electorate right now and, as has been seen, people do not respond well to being insulted about their worries or issues or views.

The reaction to of protest voting should be to re-engage with people over the issues and the set out how the parties can each tackle these issues not create a whole section of people who are made to feel like outsiders with only one party to represent them.

garlicyoni Fri 03-May-13 14:58:35

When people say 'I vote UKIP because the other parties don't listen': What they mean is that 'I am a lazy twat who can't be bothered engaging my brain to think through any issue, but the UKIP soundbites and unaffordable empty promises chime with what I read in the Daily Mail and my own petty prejudices'.

Compos, I think it's the politicians' responsibility to address this. It's unreasonable to expect great masses of hard-pressed people, many of whom have never received training in critical listening, to invest time & effort in working through matters of state. It's a pity more of us would rather discuss BGT than PMQs, but not a crime or even surprising.

Despite my better-than average education and political awareness, I am majorly fucked off by the fact that none of the people running the conditions of my life have ever lived anything like a normal life. It's always pissed me off, tbh, but in the old days there were at least policy-makers in Parliament who had 'lived' and who stayed in touch with those who do.

I've only voted non-Labour twice (once libdem, once green) and I wouldn't do it again. But I am bitterly disappointed in the Labour we have now, and - should they not liven up their messages before 2015 - regret to say I'll probably spoil my vote instead of supporting yet another bunch of self-referential numpties. It's not our job to seek the parties' missions, it's their job to offer them. The fact that UKIP makes a better show of it than Labour isn't a criticism of voters, it's a condemnation of Labour.

gabsid Fri 03-May-13 14:59:52

I missed my chance yesterday as I went to vote. Outside the polling station was our Lib Dem candidate and then 3 elderly ladies from UKIP one of whom was the local candidate, I assume.

Really, I wish I had asked them a few questions and why I should be voting for them and later told them that I am an immigrant. I live in a village which is populated by 70% skilled working class and about 30% middle class mostly white British.

Besides, if they don't want immigrants they better not get sick then because our local hospital is pretty much run by foreign doctors.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 15:03:10

Voting for a party means voting for the whole platform

No it doesn't.
There's no rule that says that.
Plenty of people vote on the whole package but plenty of others vote on 1 issue alone if it is something they believe so strongly in that it cancels out any other concerns. Look at the LibDems - loads of people voted for them for no tuition fees. They didn't give a damn about electoral reform so when the AV vote came, hardly anyone supported it even though LibDems pushed and pushed it.

Most people probably vote with maybe 4 to 7 key issues in mind. They vote for the party/parties that best represent their views on those key issues. They may not even consider the issues that hold no relevance or interest to them.

You cannot force feed people party manifestos and make them come up with a statistical analysis of their true feelings before they cast a vote. Plenty of votes are won and lost on decisions about just a small number of policies and if a lot of people feel strongly on a few main policies, the main parties have to heed this.

gabsid Fri 03-May-13 15:04:05

They put big posters up around here with the slogan - something like 'immigration, enough is enough'. There are hardly any immigrants around here and those I see are making an important contribution to society, pay their taxes and couldn't easily be replaced.

LtEveDallas Fri 03-May-13 15:11:04

Dallas you said that basically UKIP is full of 'witless goons, riddled with bigotry

Umm, no I didn't ironman? With statements like that you're not doing much to persuade me that you aren't a witless goon TBH.

So what do you think about their other policies ironman? Taking immigration and homophobia out of the equation, are you married to a female? Do you have female children or employees/colleagues? Do you think that women should stay at home whilst their men work?

MoreBeta Fri 03-May-13 15:20:14

Just wanted to get this off my chest.

Wind power is an insanely expensive and unreliable technology for delivering the electricity we need. UKIP opposing it is just plain sensible - it is not a question of politics but economics.

flatpackhamster Fri 03-May-13 15:20:33

This appears to have degenerated in to yet another thread where anti-UKIPpers display their intolerance, bigotry and petty prejudices. Which are far better than UKIP's intolerance, bigotry and petty prejudices, naturally.

IamMrsElf Fri 03-May-13 15:22:08

I wouldn't vote for them. I don't like Farage. I don't like what they stand for.

If you want to protest vote, consider an independent candidate, campaigning on local issues.

I think politics is an incredibly personal subject, like what type of underwear you like - it has to fit you and you have to feel comfortable, it doesn't have to be something you show to other people, but I would only show people I trust.

pickledginger Fri 03-May-13 15:24:20

Check your history.This isn't a new phenomenon and is happening all over Europe at the moment. Recession and prolonged economic hardship leads to a shift to the right and the rise of nationalist, isolationist anti-immigration groups. It's about finding someone to blame for the problems.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 15:28:01

More beta I agree totally re the wind thing and we're paying for them!!!

Dawndonna Fri 03-May-13 15:31:16

I'm 54. I wouldn't vote UKIP if you paid me. Policies are bigoted, although give them credit, it's not one strand bigotry, there are a fair few hits there! They're uncosted, unaffordable and generally unworkable.
My protest vote went to The Green Party.

roundtoit Fri 03-May-13 15:34:14

As far as i am concerned the whole lot of them are all the same, in it for the glory and for the expenses. waste of space the lot of them.

somebloke123 Fri 03-May-13 15:35:20

Wind turbines are wonderful things. They input money from inflated electricity bills from single mothers on council estates and they output (via government subsidies) school fees and chateau-bottled claret for rich landowners such as Cameron's father-in-law.

Also they provide a nice little earner for pro-green "consultants" such as Tim Yeo and John Selwyn Gummer.

slug Fri 03-May-13 15:37:45

Denmark gets 25% of it's electricity from wind power. Quick! Someone tell them it's insanely expensive and unreliable.

jaywall Fri 03-May-13 15:48:13

I'm a UKIP voter. And very happy to be so.

Im no fan of socialism, i believe it is essentially a flawed system that in effect actually slows down or even reverses a groups natural progression.
Because of this i am obviously no fan of the EU as it currently stands, i have nothing against it in principle but it's very socialist ideals are what prevent me from supporting it.

So traditionally my choice has always been Conservative, even though their stance on Europe hasn't always fit exactly with mine they were the closest match. This is the first time in my life where i have a real choice and that is a good thing.
My voting for UKIP is tactical, i don't believe for a minute they will create a majority government but they don't need to. They need enough of a power base to force some issues back onto the table. A referendum on our continuing membership of the EU in it's current state as one of them.

All this nonsense talk of UKIP being against legal immigrants in this country is nonsense and the usual leftist 'playing the race card'. If you take the time to read their policies they are quite sensible, they talk about limiting future immigration and combating illegal immigration which seems the kind of sensible policy that Labour have admitted they should have had during their disastrous tenure.

Anyway, don't take anyone's word for it on here, we are so lucky in this age with all the information we want within seconds. Ignore the opinions of others until you create your own.

ElliedJeels Fri 03-May-13 15:49:43

I just read this on the BBC website, and it struck me as horrifying:

"UKIP has been vocal in its opposition to what it sees as "political correctness" in public life. It also argues that multiculturalism has "split" British society. It would legislate to allow smoking in pubs, in designated rooms, and hold local referendums on repealing the hunting ban."

Multiculturalism has split British society? Wow. My happy, contributing, law-abiding little family has a lot to answer for it seems.

jaywall Fri 03-May-13 15:57:10

slug Fri 03-May-13 15:37:45
Denmark gets 25% of it's electricity from wind power. Quick! Someone tell them it's insanely expensive and unreliable.

Or rather more pointedly you could tell them they have the most expensive electricity in europe.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 15:58:42

grin

Domin1c Fri 03-May-13 15:59:40

Has anyone that voted UKIP actually read their national manifesto? I would do that. They propose massive tax cuts and at the same time massive increases in public spending. And then you get onto the racist stuff. My wife (a German citizen) would lose her right to stay here. She would not be eligible for benefits, so our child benefit would stop. Every time she left or entered the country it would be "recorded" (What for, Nige? Why not just make her wear some kind of symbol so you can easily identify her as a foreigner?) and if she doesn't "respect our laws" she would face deportation. And as for their claims of being Libertarian, they oppose gay marriage.

slug Fri 03-May-13 16:13:45

Are you female jaywall? Do you have children? Do you work? Do you realise UKIP want to abolish maternity pay and allow businesses to discriminate when it comes to employing women of childbearing age?

How do you feel about this? If you have daughters do you think UKIP will be good for them?

Blueskiesandbuttercups Fri 03-May-13 16:17:05

Slug but the other 3 are shit for children,utterly shit.

somebloke123 Fri 03-May-13 16:17:12

"Denmark gets 25% of it's electricity from wind power. Quick! Someone tell them it's insanely expensive and unreliable"

I think they have already worked that out for themselves.

An installed capacity of 25% would only translate to 25% of electricity if the wind blew constantly and optimally so that - say - a 2MW turbine always produced a constant 2MW. In reality it's only a fraction of that - and unpredictable and bursty.

flatpackhamster Fri 03-May-13 16:22:18

slug

Are you female jaywall? Do you have children? Do you work? Do you realise UKIP want to abolish maternity pay and allow businesses to discriminate when it comes to employing women of childbearing age?

What they actually say is that they want to scrap the statutory system and let businesses provide it as they see fit. What's interesting about their small business policy, which it appears you haven't read, is that they specifically talk about balancing the employee/employer bargaining arrangement by making it more transparent and requiring the employer to list, upfront as part of the recruitment process, the pay and conditions that the employer offers as part of the role and what other people at the firm are currently receiving.
It doesn't forbid business from offering maternity pay but it no longer compels all businesses to offer something that they may not be able to afford.

How do you feel about this? If you have daughters do you think UKIP will be good for them?

D'you think that a small business is more, or less likely to employ a woman of childbearing age under the current system?

MoreBeta Fri 03-May-13 16:46:04

jaywall - the Danes back up their wind generation capacity with local municipal combined heat and power plants (a very efficient sort of fossil fuel generation capacity) as well as large coal fired power staions plus imported electricty brought in via undersea interconnectors from German coal fired power stations.

More problematic is when the wind does actually blow in Denmark there is often a very rapid surge in output over a matter of minutes and the surplus electric in Denmark is dumped uncontrollably back over the undersea interconnectors and it floods into the grid into North Germany. The German grid operator has to rapidly back down the German coal fired power stations at huge expense to prevent it destabilisng their grid.

Those coal stations have typically spent the early hours of the morning ramping up to full capacity burning thousands of tonnes of coal -all that heat is wasted and the CO2 was still emitted anyway.

Wind power is a ghastly folly. Vestas, the biggest Danish wind turbine manufacturer is facing financial difficulty and the entire industry was built on a huge subsidy from the Danish taxpayer.

UKIP want to avoid that happening in the UK.

MoreBeta Fri 03-May-13 16:49:21

Domin1c - like you, Nigel Farage has a wife who is German. I think your DW is unlikely to be thrown out of the UK.

Viviennemary Fri 03-May-13 16:49:31

There is already massive unfairness in the workplace regarding pensions and childcare facilities. All this up in arms business about what UKIP might do being unfair. It's unfair now.

ItsYonliMe Fri 03-May-13 16:54:12

Domin1c - and if she doesn't "respect our laws" she would face deportation.

GOOD. I'd hope that any foreigner who doesn't respect our laws would face deportation. Why do you have a problem with that?

The more I hear about UKIP the more I like them.

slug Fri 03-May-13 16:54:41

Oh I've read it. Did you not read the bit about small businesses perhaps paying young women more to compensate for the lack of maternity pay. Given that women in the UK are already under paid in comparison to men the possibility of that happening is somewhere between highly unlikely and not at all. It's lip service to hide their belief that women in the workforce are inherently a problem given the possibility that they might get pregnant and SME are only paid 104% of SPM which, as we all know, is a bleeding liberty. They specifically mention SME's having to recruit from a smaller employment pool. Which translates as "Don't bother to even interview women".

Under the current system businesses are bound by European law. Now, I agree, many of them flagrantly flout this, but at least they are not allowed to advertise that childbearing age women need not apply and women have the right to challenge them in the courts. UKIP would prefer to do away with what little protection women have.

I simply fail to see how any woman who works or has daughters would support a party that is so openly contemptuous of them.

And don't get me started on Farrage's pet policy to rescind the smoking ban. How this sits with their belief in protecting the NHS is simply beyond me. It took a grand total of 2 weeks for the effects of the smoking ban to be registered in hospitals in Scotland in terms of the drop in admissions for breathing and chest pains. Ultimately this saved the NHS, and continues to save it, vast amounts of money. How they are going to fund the rise in admissions once the ban is revoked is not explained, especially once those pesky tax paying women are removed from the workforce.

SusannahL Fri 03-May-13 16:57:39

Impala you are absolutely spot on. An awful lot of people are completely disillusioned by the Conservatives' reluctance to get to grips with the real problems in this contry - the 'open door' policy on immigration being one of the most important. Instead they have concentrated on issues such as permitting 'marriage' for homosexuals, an issue which concerns only a minority of the population.
UKIP seem to be the only party taking a stand on the immigration issue.

slug Fri 03-May-13 16:58:37

Neither of his wives is English. The first was Irish and the second is German

gabsid Fri 03-May-13 17:40:45

I see them essentially as racist - you can dress it up as you like.

FoundAChopinLizt Fri 03-May-13 17:49:29

All right wing parties scare me, they all boil down to the 'dog eat dog' mentality. I'm with John Lennon

'imagine there's no countries...and no religion too'

And, I know

'you may say I'm a dreamer'.

smile

flatpackhamster Fri 03-May-13 18:07:42

slug

Oh I've read it. Did you not read the bit about small businesses perhaps paying young women more to compensate for the lack of maternity pay. Given that women in the UK are already under paid in comparison to men the possibility of that happening is somewhere between highly unlikely and not at all.

With pay transparency, the situation as it stands where pushy men who ask for pay rises are more likely to get them, would not affect women's pay.

It's lip service to hide their belief that women in the workforce are inherently a problem given the possibility that they might get pregnant and SME are only paid 104% of SPM which, as we all know, is a bleeding liberty. They specifically mention SME's having to recruit from a smaller employment pool. Which translates as "Don't bother to even interview women".

That's your (wrong, in my view) interpretation of their policy.

Under the current system businesses are bound by European law.

Glad we all voted for that.

Now, I agree, many of them flagrantly flout this, but at least they are not allowed to advertise that childbearing age women need not apply and women have the right to challenge them in the courts. UKIP would prefer to do away with what little protection women have.

It always boils down to this - you'd rather have a non-democratic system of government which gives you the socialist policies you desire than a democratic one which doesn't.

I simply fail to see how any woman who works or has daughters would support a party that is so openly contemptuous of them.

And don't get me started on Farrage's pet policy to rescind the smoking ban. How this sits with their belief in protecting the NHS is simply beyond me. It took a grand total of 2 weeks for the effects of the smoking ban to be registered in hospitals in Scotland in terms of the drop in admissions for breathing and chest pains.

Yes, IIRC the study which claimed that the smoking ban had made a difference contained nearly as many egregious errors as the study which claimed the UK population was in favour of wind turbines.

Ultimately this saved the NHS, and continues to save it, vast amounts of money. How they are going to fund the rise in admissions once the ban is revoked is not explained, especially once those pesky tax paying women are removed from the workforce.

Remarkable how so many left-wingers are so determined to 'save money' when there are policies around which they don't agree with.

PatPig Fri 03-May-13 18:11:06

Didn't John Lennon write that song in a multi-million pound house within a gated estate in Weybridge?

A great vantage point from which to pontificate on open borders, from behind security fences and surrounded by fellow millionaires.

gabsid Fri 03-May-13 18:12:24

I don't understand the problem with immigration. Some people come here to work, there are others who seek asylum. The UK isn't overrun.
Immigration isn't a new issue, people have always moved between countries and continents.

I don't really get it. Who exactly isn't wanted here? Is it all the foreign doctors who run our hospital, the teachers, the people who do the jobs nobody else will do?

PatPig Fri 03-May-13 18:15:12

The UK isn't overrun?

So why does a house in Brixton now cost nearly a million quid? www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-41329208.html

Certainly that is a new issue.

FoundAChopinLizt Fri 03-May-13 18:42:56

PatPig

so people from which socioeconomic backgrounds are allowed to hold anti right wing views? Is there a salary beyond which you cannot have political vision? Ghandi also abhorred this type of party, he was not living the high life.

WidowWadman Fri 03-May-13 18:43:51

flatpackhamster

"It doesn't forbid business from offering maternity pay but it no longer compels all businesses to offer something that they may not be able to afford."

And how many small businesses will offer anything if they're not compelled to? It's dire enough if you get SMP only. Just because an employer would have to say upfront that they're not going to offer anything doesn't make it better.

Dawndonna Fri 03-May-13 18:54:21

Didn't John Lennon write that song in a multi-million pound house within a gated estate in Weybridge?
Taking into consideration that he was murdered, your point is?

VivaLeBeaver Fri 03-May-13 18:55:27

One of the consultants at work says their health policy is actually very good.

They want to separate health budgets into areas and each area/county get their budget, full control and they decide how to spend it. He says at the minute about 25% of the total health budget is spent by/in Whitehall. So millions and millions of £.

Dawndonna Fri 03-May-13 18:57:09

Yes, IIRC the study which claimed that the smoking ban had made a difference contained nearly as many egregious errors as the study which claimed the UK population was in favour of wind turbines.
Which study, there have been dozens all reporting the same thing, is every one of them wrong?

beatback Fri 03-May-13 18:59:07

I Think at the moment Nigel Farage is bringing a bit of fresh air to politics, people are sick of seeing the same faces. Most of them have been to Oxford or Cambridge, been with their parties from 15 years old done the canvassing got the unwinable seat then the safe seat. They have little knowledge of life outside the politcal bubble, therfore they come up with silly ideas like a 6th form School kid would. U.K.I.P are trying to make out they are magicians"LOWER TAXES" BETTER WAGES" BETTER EDUCATION" we need to see their "MANIFESTO" and see how this makes sense.Anyone can say these things and fool people but it is very unlikely to be true. I think part of the appeal of U.k.I.P to some people is they think they remind them of a golden time in the United Kingdom, when we could survive as a sole Economy,with a bit of the Commonwealth and the U.S.A that time as well and truly passed. We need a referendum on the E.U as soon as possible,the problem could be that certain newspapers could turn the thing in to "JOHNNY FOREIGNER" ACTUNG" type stuff and trivalize what could be the most important debate in the United Kingdom for 70 years.

VivaLeBeaver Fri 03-May-13 18:59:35

I didn't vote for ukip btw.

WidowWadman Fri 03-May-13 19:06:46

Vivalabeaver -Isn't that Foundation Trusts already do? I men having full control over their own budgets?

gabsid Fri 03-May-13 19:20:50

UK house prices are a result of immigration?

Lazyjaney Fri 03-May-13 19:24:42

Seems our more energised left wingers on this thread are forgetting the UK is a democracy, not a one party state where there is only one opinion allowed.

If one can't argue on ideas, just on personal abuse, it just shows there is intellectual bankruptcy.

VivaLeBeaver Fri 03-May-13 19:26:08

I think oundation trusts do....but there's still people in Whitehall spending something like £28million a year deciding stuff. Ukip want to do away with that completely. Though not sure who's gong to decide how much each county gets? But maybe not a whole massive dept will be needed?

And a foundation trust is only a small part of what's happening in a county, there's loads of other groups, trusts, etc.

I dunno, haven't read their manifesto but maybe they will give all the county budget to a commissioning group for the county. There are too many levels at the minute, Whitehall, commissioning groups, various primary and tertiary care providers.

gabsid Fri 03-May-13 19:26:46

They are certainly stuck in the past. Mainstream parties may be in a political bubble, but UKIP inhabit a bubble of their own, well removed from reality today. Maybe its the Daily Mail fantasy bubble.

5madthings Fri 03-May-13 19:30:50

Can i ask those who have voted ukip and think their policies are best for their childrens futures, i assume your children are all nt and have no special needs. You do realise if your children do have special needs or go on to develop them that ukip wont give a crap and will essentially throw you to the dogs.

Lazyjaney Fri 03-May-13 19:30:54

And btw I am a lifelong Green supporter, but IMO this mindless howling at the UKIP lot is showing complete ethical and intellectual bankruptcy and playing into their hands.

By refusing to engage on things that clearly concern a lot of your fellow voting citizens, you (and the mainstream parties as well) are a very large part of why they exist and are growing.

UKIP scares me as I see echoes of the 1930s, but it was as much the refusal of the existing political order to deal with problems that caused the rise of the nationalist parties.

beatback Fri 03-May-13 19:33:29

DO people realize over 85% of our import and export is done within the Euro Zone. Imagine if will we to pull out of Europe and unlikely i know in the same way as,taking money out of "ACCOUNTS" Europe imposed import tarriffs on our goods,we could suffer "CATASTROPHIC" Consequences to our Economy. We need to be told the facts, most people believe the "NONSENSE" that we are the only ones that pay in the E.U and that the United Kingdom gets no benefit from Europe.

beatback Fri 03-May-13 19:44:58

LAZY JANEY. You think U.K.I.P are looking for scapegoats to blame for the current Economic mess then. Personally i think as a Country we have very many ethnic communties, for that to happen. There are many examples of succesfull asians ,blacks and all different religions and coulours. I think any "OSWALD MOSLEY" type person would be unlikely to come though.

Mumzy Fri 03-May-13 19:45:39

I'm an immigrant (been in UK for 35 years) and have in-laws who are working class and were labour voters. Both of us voted Ukip as where we are we are feeling the effects of uncontrolled immigration and feel none of the mainstream parties are taking our concerns seriously. We have problems getting GP/ hospital appointments, shortage of school places/ affordable housing. My inlaws have witness violence and crime outside their house as a result of ongoing feuds between various immigrant groups. Agree with others that immigration is necessary for the economy but it needs to be controlled. Immigrants need to integrate into the local population which is difficult to do if large numbers enter the country very quickly.

WouldBeHarrietVane Fri 03-May-13 19:49:25

My DH has admitted he voted ukip sad

He says his reasons were:

- he wanted to send a message to the mainstream political parties by telling them they were doing a bad job

- he wants the recession to end

- he wants the democratic deficit in the eu looked at

He says he would never have voted for them if he thought they had any chance of winning as he thinks they are bonkers. I've told him on that logic he should have voted green!!

I voted labour.

beatback Fri 03-May-13 19:50:25

5 MADTHINGS. Are you saying that U.K.I.P would do away with specialist Teachers then. What have they said about S.E.N,all i have heard from them is that they want Grammar Schools nothing about S.E.N.

ModreB Fri 03-May-13 19:53:14

My main issue with UKIP policies is that we in GB are built on immigration. I am too far into wine o'clock to have a bunfight discussion about it, but a good summary is here

Dawndonna Fri 03-May-13 19:53:26

Beatback Do check out item 5 under Healthcare and the last point on Education and Training.
6 HEALTHCARE & THE NHS

· Keep the NHS free at the point of delivery and make no cuts to frontline services
· Replace overlapping tiers of NHS bureaucracy (SHAs/PCTs) with locally-elected County Health Boards
· Introduce private sector ‘franchise partnerships’ to run NHS healthcare services better, while assets remain in public hands
· Introduce ‘Health Credit Vouchers’ to allow people to opt out of the NHS if they wish
· Re-examine community care and support congregate communities for people with learning disabilities
· Restore free NHS dental check-ups and eye tests

7 EDUCATION & TRAINING

· Bring back the ‘three Rs’ and teach reading with phonics to provide a proper educational foundation
· Encourage the creation of new grammar schools, but make the 11-plus vocational as well as academic
· Give parents ‘School Vouchers’ so they can choose between schools - state or private
· Raise standards by franchising state schools to private organisations, such as charitable trusts
· Re-introduce student grants (‘Student Vouchers’ and ‘Training Vouchers’)
· Re-examine the policy of ‘inclusion’ and support special schools for children with learning disabilities

claig Fri 03-May-13 19:54:00

"He says he would never have voted for them if he thought they had any chance of winning as he thinks they are bonkers. I've told him on that logic he should have voted green!!"

But he wanted to send a message to the mainstream political parties. That is why he voted UKIP just like 25% of the voters. They all wanted to send a message. The greens are a joke and their vieews are mainstream and all the mainstream political parties and progressives agree with most of them. Of course, the 25% of the people don't.

sieglinde Fri 03-May-13 19:57:21

Just dropped by to say how much I bloody hate 'Imagine'. BOLLOCKS. Patronising bollocks. The kind of talk-down-to-the-scum stuff only the rich and mighty get away with. Makes me want to take out the Clash and give it the LOT. Or East Jesus Nowhere. Or Brain Stew. Green Day. Eh Oh grin

Phew.

Now back to UKIP. Thing is that they think there are magic money trees. Their maths is crappier than Gideon's. If we take back all the money we give to the Eu we also lose all the money we GET from them, which doesn't figure in their budgets at all. Where is the money for universities to come form if they crack down even more on overseas students? And how do they know that immigrants don't make a net contribution? - Polish immigrants do.

The opportunity to have "protest votes" in council elections between parliamentary elections seems like a really crap system. If people really are using it as a way to be heard then they are potentially sacrificing good local government and parties with genuine local manifestos for the chance to stick two fingers up.

I have found the posts explaining UKIP's policies very informative, but even people who are genuinely voting for one or more of these policies won't actually see any progress made towards them by voting in a councillor as they are parliamentary issues. The only local issue raised that UKIP councillors might influence seems to be renewable energy and wind farms. While I appreciate that renewable energy is an important issue, there is so much more to local politics.

Cloverer Fri 03-May-13 19:57:33

People vote UKIP because:
- they think there are too many immigrants
- they don't like gay marriage
- they think women with children are better off at home rather than in the workplace taking maternity leave and damaging business
- they aren't keen on all this EU Human Rights stuff

claig Fri 03-May-13 19:58:51

Most UKIP voters didn't look at the UKIP mainfesto. They don't know what all their policies are. But they don't care. This was an unprecedented protest vote for anon-mainstream party which has not been since for probably 100 years. This shows the deep disillusionment with the traditional parties and particularly the Tories who have let their ow voters down and have abandoned them in favour of progressive policies that please the BBC and the Guardian.

The people are so fed up of not being represented that they voted for UKIP without even knowing exactly what they stand for. They don't care. They think they can't be any worse than the progressives in Tory clothing.

claig Fri 03-May-13 20:02:00

'they are potentially sacrificing good local government and parties with genuine local manifestos for the chance to stick two fingers up.'

yes, many good Tory councillors lost their seats. But that is democracy. What else can the people do to show their disgust at the way that they have been let down by parties that they trusted to deliver for them.

All the bullshit opinion polls and all the bullshit progressive TV debates have been shown up for the fraud that they were. No one spoke to the people, no one cared what they thought, and that is why when they had their chance, they stuck two fingers up to the progressives.

beatback Fri 03-May-13 20:05:09

DAWNDONNA. It sounds wonderful to me but how would we pay for it,if we lost 20% of our Economy if Europe imposed import tariffs on our products. If it is this simple why have none of the 3 main parties come up with these ideas. I am not anti U.K.I.P i just cant see how it can work.

claig Fri 03-May-13 20:06:35

Farage was on radio this morning and he explained the rise in his vote as being due to a mindset. He is right. It is not just about Europe or immigration because people know that the elite will never change those policies. It is about an entire mindset that is fed up of the progressive establishment and metropolitan elite and its disdain for the views of the majority.

And the fact that it is about a "mindset" explains why the people don't care what the UKIP manifesto is and the majority have not even read it.

Dawndonna Fri 03-May-13 20:11:19

Beatback
It won't work, it's not financially viable.
I don't understand why the locking up of people with learning disabilities sounds so wonderful, perhaps you could explain your reasoning?

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 20:11:36

By refusing to engage on things that clearly concern a lot of your fellow voting citizens, you (and the mainstream parties as well) are a very large part of why they exist and are growing.
^ this^
By reducing it to yet more insults and saying that people should not feel this way does not address the fact that many people do

but even people who are genuinely voting for one or more of these policies won't actually see any progress made towards them by voting in a councillor as they are parliamentary issues.

In theory local elections are on local issues. At times of hardship or unease especially though, they are mainly used to punish the government and the main opposition party normally expects big gains (which may or may not be replicated in a later General Election).
You can't force people at such times to only think about library services and how happy they are with the work of their current Councillors. Many people vote with national issues in mind even at local elections.
The point of doing so is that huge disaffection now sends a message to the main parties 2 years ahead of a General Election to say 'sort these issues out or pay the price at the 'real' elections'

beatback Fri 03-May-13 20:13:10

DAWNDONNA. Regarding the 11+ when you say vocational you mean bringing back Technical High Schools then. so it would go back to the tripartite system. The problem would be SECONDARY MODERNS would be created,and though i am in favor of Grammar Schools, SECONDARY MODERNS as were in the 60s were just dumping grounds. there would need to be thinking what to do with the bottom 30% and still give them chances to achieve.

Varya Fri 03-May-13 20:13:18

Fortunate here that an Independent was candidate. I find that Independents are good at County Council level and most have fair and balanced viewpoints.

Dawndonna Fri 03-May-13 20:17:26

Beatback
That isn't what is meant. I didn't say anything about vocational, I think vocational is good.
However, I have three children who need support. Having said that their IQs are all in the 150 and above range. Why should they not receive support and why because ASDs is defined as a learning disability, should they be assigned to a congregate community?

beatback Fri 03-May-13 20:17:31

DAWNDONNA. How is a special School locking people up. and i dont think it is financally possible anyway.

beatback Fri 03-May-13 20:19:21

DAWNDONNA. I Suffer from A.S.D and with IQS OF 150 they would be at GRAMMAR SCHOOLS surely.

beatback Fri 03-May-13 20:35:20

DAWNDONNA. 30 years ago i suffered terribly for it i just stared in to space for 5 years at Secondary School because i have terrible handwriting, i never did any work, never got any support from the School they just assumed i was stupid and incapable of doing any Academic work and i was made to do a "COMMUNITY BASED COURSE" which was making cups of tea for old people and other useless things. If you read the threads of Mumsnet and other websites you will realize that kids with A.S.D are now passing 11+ often and are going to Oxbridge and Russell group Universities. I dont think it means A.S.D or people with high functioning conditions.

claig Fri 03-May-13 20:37:50

The Tory voters believe that many of the UKIP candidates are just like them - ordinary people who never went to Oxbridge, never went to Eton, never had a silver spoon, never had a PPE, never worked in a think tank, were never policy wonks, but were just like them, struggling in small businesses up and down the land without the expenses and perks that the policy wonks received.

They have disagreed with the policy on Europe and on immigration for years, but only now have they chosen to vote for UKIP en masse, and that is because they have finally had enough of being let down by the people whom they voted for over policies that go far beyond Europe and immigration.

They have sent a message that the elite did not foresee, because teh elite never listened to the people. The people have said enough is enough.

IfNotNowThenWhen Fri 03-May-13 20:41:16

People are voting UKIP because they are scared. Fear is a very very bad motivator for political decisions. History tells us that.
Maybe the people voting UKIP have a limited grasp on history (as well as politics).
And morebeta I don't think that everyone NOT voting UKIP is "Islington inteligensia" I'm certainly not. I can't even spell it.

Dawndonna Fri 03-May-13 20:42:50

A congregate community for people with learning disabilities is locking them up Backbeat. It's back to the old days of seen and not heard.

But that's not the point, it's not just my dcs, why should anyone be allowed to fail because they have a disability or a difference, why should they be locked up for it?

IfNotNowThenWhen Fri 03-May-13 20:43:45

Also, European money does actually help a lot of people in the UK. Granted, not neccessarily middle aged wealthy people, but it pays for all kinds of things, from children's projects in the Welsh valleys, to grants for PhD students in the sciences.

claig Fri 03-May-13 20:45:55

'People are voting UKIP because they are scared.'

No, the people are not scared, they are fed up and they showed it in exasperation by sticking two fingers up to the great and the good.

They know that UKIP will probably never get into powerr, they know that things will probably continue as they are and teh elite will continue to ignore them, but they want to send a message that they are fed up and do not support any of the parties that claim to represent them.

I agree with Blueskies first post, but we both voted Green. Our local Green MP is a lovely lady who (during the door-to-doors before last polls) was very kind because I was a crying wreck, two weeks post-CS and DS2 kept crying, the others were rude wankers. That sums it up. The main three parties don't give a shit about people like us. It was a protest vote.

infamouspoo Fri 03-May-13 20:47:08

'Sorry but Ukip offer the best future for my children at the moment.'

well arent you lucky you're arent disabled

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 20:47:51

tiggytape, I have seen few insults on this thread and elsewhere in the media and wider world re UKIP and their so-called 'policies'. What I have seen is a lot of criticism and a lot of willingness to call out racism and recognise it for what it is. That isn't about silencing people or marginalising them or whatever - it is simply countering racist hate speech with arguments against it and calling it what it is.

Which I think is fair enough - you want free speech? Well, fine, but be prepared for others also wanting free speech to disagree with you. Or are all of these UKIP voters such delicate (racist) flowers that they can't fight their own (racist) corner?

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 20:49:59

Maybe the people voting UKIP have a limited grasp on history (as well as politics).

Every time this sort of bollocks is expressed, UKIP will do better.

Cameron backtracking on the news tonight, talk all of respect, not of clowns and loonies.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 20:53:34

"I have seen few insults on this thread"

Calling people racists is an insult.

Which you just did. grin

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 20:57:52

No. Calling racists racists and speaking out against racism is not an insult but a valid counter-argument against racist views. Which UKIP and their supporters quite clearly hold. People who are opposed to intolerance and bigotry are entitled to legitimately stand up against such hate-filled viewpoints and the people that hold them. In fact, they have a duty to vehemently counter them. This stuff matters.

claig Fri 03-May-13 20:59:13

It was mainly former Tories that voted for UKIP. They know that by doing so, they may help New Labour and some of the flint-faced former Communist Party members to return and wreck the country and its liberties even more than they did before, but they still voted UKIP, because they are fed up of being let down by their own party and the progressives in it who take their vote for granted.

The people have been let down for years, they know that "they are all the same" and that "we are not in it all together", but only now have they finally given up hope that things may change and that is why they finally stuck two fingers up and now watch the backtracking over statements about "clowns" and "fruitcakes", which is how the elite saw them.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 21:01:51

You've had quite a lot to say for a new poster, claig.

IfNotNowThenWhen Fri 03-May-13 21:01:58

Fuck. Now I'm scared.
OK, Is this better? People are voting UKIP because they are secretly bigoted twats.
And they are justifying this by calling it a "protest vote"

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 21:02:42

Most of it arsenuts, as well.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 21:03:29

(That last comment was to claig.)

claig Fri 03-May-13 21:07:10

'You've had quite a lot to say for a new poster, claig.'

It's called democracy and free speech. You have told us your view that UKIP and the 25% of voters who casted votes for it was about "racism" and "hate speech". I have explained what it was really about.

claig Fri 03-May-13 21:08:36

And unlike you nad your "hate speech" views, I am a former Tory voter who voted for UKIP, so I probably understand the reasons why better than you and your insulting, simplistic "racist" reason.

claig Fri 03-May-13 21:11:40

'People are voting UKIP because they are secretly bigoted twats.'

They are not bigoted twats. The 25% who voted will be bus drivers, shop assistants, teachers and a cross-section of the entire population. They are fed up of being let down by the mainstream parties in their Westminster bubble who flipped homes and flipped them off. That is why they finally stuck two fingers up themselves.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 21:12:58

You haven't really explained anything though, have you? Just the same old tired and mis-spelled soundbites.

If you vote for UKIP you're a racist. Who opposes women having maternity pay or indeed being employed at all if of child-bearing age.

PetiteRaleuse Fri 03-May-13 21:14:46

Claig is not a new poster. She often comes onto the political threads.

claig Fri 03-May-13 21:15:02

UKIP even got about 25% of the vote in South Shields, a Labour stronghold. Thousands of ordinary people voted for them to send the elite a message.

Don't insult the British people by calling them racists because of the message that they wanted to send. Respect democracy, respect the people who make up our communities.

IfNotNowThenWhen Fri 03-May-13 21:15:30

They are bigoted bus driving twats then.

claig Fri 03-May-13 21:15:45

Thanks, Petite smile

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 21:16:36

If British people - or people of any nationality - vote for a racist party, then they are racists.

WidowWadman Fri 03-May-13 21:18:17

To be fair, I think they're not only racists, but also xenophobes. I'm as blonde and blue-eyed as can be, but I don't think they'd want me here either.

claig Fri 03-May-13 21:18:39

'If you vote for UKIP you're a racist. Who opposes women having maternity pay or indeed being employed at all if of child-bearing age.'

I voted UKIP and I am not a racist and I do not oppose maternity pay. I explained that most UKIP voters didn't read UKIP's manifesto and don't know what it says. They didn't care. They wanted to send a message that they were fed up of being ignored and that is what they achieved, with the great and the good now backtracking on calling them "clowns".

WidowWadman Fri 03-May-13 21:19:49

"lained that most UKIP voters didn't read UKIP's manifesto and don't know what it says. They didn't care. They wanted to send a message that they were fed up of being ignored "

Why would you pay attention to someone, who can't even be arsed to find out what they're voting for?

chibi Fri 03-May-13 21:21:14

i am an immigrant. sorry.

having a party which despises people like me win so much if the vote is interesting, to say the least.

i am sure everyone who voted for them is a fantastic human being with plenty of excellent reasons for doing so.

i am also glad my children appear white, have an english surname, a home counties accent and are nt. i am also glad i still hold a passport for my country of origin, as do my children (through ancestry, they have english blood and were born in england, don't worry)

Xenia Fri 03-May-13 21:21:42

Maternity arguably damages women and keeps them segregated at home as unhappy little housewives and low earners. It foists them into a ghetto where they are secondary to a husband and earn at best in money.

UKIP appeals to a lot of the views of the core working class in the UK, the small business owners, the taxi drivers, the Essex men and women, the hard working low earners. However they will not win power so it will just split votes to vote for them so not much point.

claig Fri 03-May-13 21:21:43

And they were even prepared to help the flint-faced former Communist Party members and harm their own Tory interests and values in order to have their message heard. That is why they actually went to the polls instead of not voting, in order to be heard. That is how important they felt it was. That is how much they cared about what is going on.

Viviennemary Fri 03-May-13 21:23:14

Even David Cameron has realised that calling people muppets, idiots, fruitcakes and so on isn't the way forward. It's hardly the way to win voters back.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 21:23:39

Well, maybe be a bit more careful and put a bit more thought into where you put your precious X next time, eh, claig, because you've just voted for a party that wants to scrap maternity leave. And abort babies with Down's Syndrome.

WouldBeHarrietVane Fri 03-May-13 21:26:57

My DH is the opposite of a bigot. He purely voted ukip to communicate his anger to the big parties about their failings.

I am angry with him, but I don't think he or a lot of other ukip voters yesterday would vote the same way in a general election.

WidowWadman Fri 03-May-13 21:27:09

Hear, hear chibi

People can dress it up as much as they like but the fact is people who vote UKIP are racist.

Anyone denying that clearly hasnt properly read up on who they are voting for.

claig Fri 03-May-13 21:28:15

'Why would you pay attention to someone, who can't even be arsed to find out what they're voting for?'

Well now they are all treating these voters with respect as they see their seats under possible threat. I feel sorry for the good hardworking Tory councillors and canvassers who share the values of most of the people who switched to UKIP and who have now lost their jobs after years of service to the community. It wasn't their fault, it was the fault of their leaders who ignored their own voters.

The elite dont hold their "big conversations" with the ordinary decent people of this country, they are too busy schmoozing the media moguls and TV bosses and journalists. They ignore the people and think they know what is best for them. There is no other way for the people to register their disapproval of the people who take them for granted than by voting against them at the ballot box. And they can't bring themselves to vote for the flint-faced former communists so they voted UKIP in protest.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 21:29:36

^to communicate his anger to the big parties about their failings.

Couldn't he just have gone on a demo? Surely that would have been preferable to giving a vote to a racist party that hates women?

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 21:31:44

* And abort babies with Down's Syndrome.*

Except,of course,they don't.

Xenia Fri 03-May-13 21:33:36

90% of British parents abort babies with down's by the way... so it's hardly a novel suggestion.

UKIP is the only UK party which expels BNP members I understand. I am a pro immigration person who is not a UKIP supporter but they are being a bit misrepresented on the thread.

It does not much matter as they will not win in the general election so it's just a bit of a side show.

claig Fri 03-May-13 21:34:37

2 million people marched against the Iraq war. What good did that do them? Did teh progressives take any notice? Did they change their policy?

But when their unfortunate councillors lose their jobs and MPS fear that they may lose their seats, then they take notice and make changes.

Don't look down on ordinary people who try to have their views heard in a democracy. Even the politicos are all now saying how much they respect the voters who have shown their disapproval of them.

BoneyBackJefferson Fri 03-May-13 21:35:52

So much matred and bigotry.

And its all from those who claim to be the voice of reason.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 21:37:26

The guy that said it was still on the ballot paper and was voted for by some people, as I understand it, Things.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 21:38:51

So UKIP (racist) voters don't claim to be 'the voice of reason' then, BoneyBack? I must have misread all of the posts from claig.

RubyGates Fri 03-May-13 21:39:02

So how many of you that vote for the mainstream parties have read all the way through their manifestos?

Should you be barre dfrom voting from anyone until you have. Surely this would mean that all the parties would be down by about 90% of their voters?

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 21:40:00

Xenia, I know that you're a bit hard of thinking, but surely even you can see the difference between parents choosing to terminate a pregnancy and being forced by law into doing so.

beatback Fri 03-May-13 21:40:08

This is getting stupid, "ARE PEOPLE SAYING IF YOU ARE POLITCALLY RIGHT OF CENTRE YOU ARE A RACIST". That is totally Untrue, you are not "RACIST" because you like "GRAMMAR SCHOOLS" "LOWER TAXES" and more "LIBERTY". U.K.I.P has a small number of racists,in its party and they have to be kicked out, "WE ARE GETTING VERY STUPID AND SILLY" if we think 25% of people are bigoted and racist. It is also doing injustice to the work that people are trying to do "DESTROY RACISM".

BoneyBackJefferson Fri 03-May-13 21:40:50

Actually wallison (if it wasn't clear) I was talking about the posters on this thread.

beatback Fri 03-May-13 21:42:30

WALLISON. Are you saying U.K.I.P are NAZIS. they are now a mainstream political party, no one is saying anything about terminating pregnancies.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 21:43:40

Wallison, you are correct. But the difference,as I understand it, is that UKIP do not "whip" candidates. It is quite possible,therefore, for a candidate to have personalviews that are not those of his/her party.

Clearly, this guy was an idiot, with some repugnant views. He was not,though,reflecting UKIP party policy.

I suspect you are well aware of this.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 21:43:53

Well, no-one apart from UKIP candidates, no.

WidowWadman Fri 03-May-13 21:45:55

"UKIP is the only UK party which expels BNP members I understand."

Can you be the member of 2 parties at the same time?

claig Fri 03-May-13 21:48:20

'"WE ARE GETTING VERY STUPID AND SILLY" if we think 25% of people are bigoted and racist'

Exactly right. this contempt for ordinary people is similar to the contempt for Daily Mail readers who are often accused of the same thing.

The majority of British people are not racist and we are one of he most tolerant countries in the world, with some of he most pleasant, friendly, open people o be found anywhere.

Try to understand the real reasons for a political earthquake of 25% of the voters voting for a non-mainstream party. It indicates how much disillusion there is with the political class who do not adequately represent the people.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 21:50:41

"Can you be the member of 2 parties at the same time?"

Oooh, I think you probably can.........Labour Party / Socialist Workers Party springs to mind wink

Xenia Fri 03-May-13 21:52:36

WW, yes, You can join about 10 parties if you want to. I believe UKIP is the only party which bans members who are members of BNP in their rules.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 21:53:17

No, it doesn't. What it represents is that in times of economic hardship and political vacuum, some people will turn to the extreme right, with all of the bigotry, xenophobia, racism and outright fucking fruitloop policies that entails. It's a worrying phenomenon that has happened many times before.

However, that is not to say that all disenfranchised voters have to find the answer to their ills in racism. I myself have completely lost faith in all three major politicial parties but I would never ever vote for UKIP. Because I'm not a racist.

chibi Fri 03-May-13 21:55:11

change is always better for some, and worse for others. this result will no doubt see the other parties ramp up their anti-immigrant and anti-immigration rhetoric to appeal to these disaffected voters.

which i guess is great, and democracy.

it makes me nervous as hell, and i can't think why i shouldn't be.

claig Fri 03-May-13 21:56:02

UKIP expels former BNP members

Here is a report of a former BNP councillor who switched to Labour.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jun/14/localgovernment.politics

WidowWadman Fri 03-May-13 21:57:21

"WW, yes, You can join about 10 parties if you want to. I believe UKIP is the only party which bans members who are members of BNP in their rules."

But isn't it rather telling, that they have to?

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 21:58:23

Wallison, do you believe that having genuine concerns regarding the level of immigration into the UK makes one a de facto racist?

claig Fri 03-May-13 21:58:37

' I myself have completely lost faith in all three major politicial parties but I would never ever vote for UKIP. Because I'm not a racist.'

You are not a racist but you are an intolerant bigot who believes that all of the 25% of voters who walked to the polling booths and voted UKIP are racists, and yet you have probably not met any single one of them.

WidowWadman Fri 03-May-13 21:59:07

What are your genuine concerns, and what are they informed by?

harbinger Fri 03-May-13 21:59:36

Wallison Oswald Mosley? Talking about that today. ...PG1

claig Fri 03-May-13 22:01:11

'But isn't it rather telling, that they have to?'

UKIP wants stronger controls on immigration. It does not want to be smeared by progressives as having anything to do with the BNP, which is possibly why it excludes former BNP members, which it seems is not something that the Labour party does.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 22:02:37

Well, quite.

Chipi, it makes me nervous too. Not for myself and immediate family, but because I don't want to live in a society where politicians feel they have to have racist policies in order to get votes, or where newspapers sell more copies if they have a racist agenda.

Wallison Fri 03-May-13 22:05:07

Things, when people have what they term as 'concerns about immigration' what they are really talking about is reduced quality of life for people in the UK, which are caused by multiple factors. If someone does not recognise these factors, and instead blames 'immigrants' for their life being more difficult than it might be, without proof of this, then yes they are a racist.

claig Fri 03-May-13 22:10:29

The father of Conservative MP, Priti Patel, was a candidate for UKIP. Do you think he would stand for a racist party?

"Mr Patel said in Ukip’s statement: “I am proud of being a Ukip candidate and very proud of the achievements of my daughter who represents the people of Witham in an exemplary fashion."

www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/witham_mp_priti_patel_says_ukip_candidate_father_is_entitled_to_his_own_political_views_1_2176624

Calling UKIP racist is nonsense and a misunderstanding of politics.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 22:25:27

Widowwadman, I will try to explain. I live in a small,rural market town, whose population has increased by approximately 30% , the increase accounted for,in the main,by Polish migrant workers. I have absolutely no problem with these people,per se. They are doing important work in the agricultural industry. However, we also have, bizarrely, a fairly high level of unemployment. The unemployed are,in the main, locals.

The Polish migrant workers have a brilliant work ethos, and will work all the hours God sends for NMW. The locals will not. However, this difference seems lost on the locals, who then go into full on "come over here,taking our jobs" mode.

So, resentment breeds. And festers. We, a tiny market town, have had riots,looted shops,burning police cars,the whole nine yards.

The impact of immigration has meant our local A&E is constantly packed with migrant workers, yet to register with a doctor. Waiting times increase vastly, locals become resentful.

Houses in multiple occupancy , rented to migrant workers by slumlords, contain upwards of 20 people,increased noise,rubbish,and parking disputes.Locals become resentful.

Our local council deny knowing how much social housing is occupied by migrant workers. They do not, apparently, collate this information. Locals become resentful.

I am afraid for our future, I am afraid for the future of our young people.

pickledginger Fri 03-May-13 22:31:50

'I have absolutely no problem with these people,per se'

grin

WidowWadman Fri 03-May-13 22:35:32

So why do you think the social housing would be occupied by migrant workers, if they're already privately renting?

BollyGood Fri 03-May-13 22:45:36

UKIP
My personal reasons for not voting for them, alongside the obvious, those of allowing fox hunting, marginalising gay people, eliminating disabled people ( yes apparently UKIP sacked the person who said babies with Downs Syndrome and Spina Bifida should be aborted, but he obviously felt he was on the right platform to publicly announce such a 'radical' opinion)

Primarily I feel angry about this- in one of their policies they bang on and on and on about how small businesses and people who are self employed are literally the backbone of society and UKIP want to support them etc. I agree, but what about people,who are not 'British' enough on the eyes of UKIP? They will no longer have the same rights yet many of these (actually they are British) people have contributed and worked hard all their lives to build up small companies and businesses which are apparently extremely important to our economic society. Will they have to leave? Or sign in and out of the country as UKIP are suggesting as a process for 'Non' British people? What about children of dual heritage and multi cultural families? Are they going to be no longer important?

'UKIP would legislate to ensure the scope of claims which can be heard by tribunals will be greatly reduced. In particular, limits on unfair dismissal and discrimination claims will be re-instated and no unfair dismissals or discrimination claims would be admitted by the Tribunals in respect of employees with less than two years' continuous employment'

Also the above proposal taken from the UKIP site- Does this not allow less than respectable employers to take people on, abuse them and then dismiss them before they have been employed for the allotted time in which they may make a complaint. Bear in mind women are one of the key groups who suffer unfair dismissal and discrimination in the work place and this very legislation was introduced to protect them. As was maternity pay and employment rights which again UKIP want to abolish. And yes I have noted that as a result of the above changes they will pay a flat rate of up to £64 a week to women who 'decide' to stay home and bring up their own children. Surely removing long fought for rights is actually removing continuous employment rights for women and dictating their futures?

UKIP has a general policy of freeing employers from burdens which are not to do with their job of creating value and in particular do not apply to our international competitors. UKIP proposes:

And this- again taken from the UKIP website...

UKIP has a general policy of freeing employers from burdens which are not to do with their job of creating value and in particular do not apply to our international competitors. UKIP proposes:
'a) To amend the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) so that it is much less intrusive into the affairs of companies and organisations, in particular, by removing the need to positively promote ‘diversity’ in the workforce which many see as divisive. The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations (2003) and the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (2003), which each implement EC directives imposing duties on employers to positively promote social engineering policies, will be repealed as a natural consequence of leaving the EU. Contract compliance as practised by the Greater London Assembly, for example, will be outlawed. UKIP will oppose measures in the ‘Equality’ Bill to force employers in the public sector to discriminate against the indigenous male population and to apply contract compliance to enforce such treatment on staff in private firms bidding for public sector contracts.'

Diversity in the workplace which many see as divisive? Who are the many of which UKIP speak? Diversity is the key to a less stagnant society and without it would be elitist and possibly with more sinister connotations. To my mind UKIP are a party not shy in going backwards.

My personal political stance is a constant source of frustration to me. I can't find anyone I feel who represents me. I am a 40 year old white, British woman who is a SAHM and has a career. I have a gay child and a multicultural family. Anyone else on here care to set up a new party??? Lots of gin,wine and bun fighting is a given. grin

pickledginger Fri 03-May-13 22:46:31

"there are complex problems. They pack into houses like sardines. Our Public Health Department has had to be augmented to cope with the problem. And we still have 1,100 on our housing list."
"In our schools the language problem is acute. English children are being held back."
"Our maternity wards are overflowing with foreign mums"
"There is no malice or bias in our refusal"
"It's for their good, too, that we cannot allow services to be overstrained and collapse."

So, stuff like that ^ is why people vote UKIP?

BollyGood Fri 03-May-13 22:51:23

Basically if you enjoy smoking, foxhunting, washing up and being chained to the kitchen sink, are not gay, disabled or have any kind of special needs, are not from another country (gasp!) and hark back to a good old England (which you never actually lived in) then vote UKIP!

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 22:52:05

'I have absolutely no problem with these people,per se'

Sigh. You see. It really is impossible to have a discourse on this subject.

For just one,one little time, could people take a statement at its face value.

Conterary to what the snarkier people in the world believe, some of us actually mean exactly what we say.smile

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 22:57:59

"So why do you think the social housing would be occupied by migrant workers, if they're already privately renting?"

The two are mutually exclusive? Some" natives" also occupy social housing, and some rent privately, surely. Why should this be any different for migrants,if they fulfill the criteria. btw - I don't "think" migrant workers in my town occupy social housing - I know.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 23:01:28

This is going around and around.
Wallison reducing the whole debate to 'UKIP voters are all racists and that’s all there is to it' isn't even an interesting discussion let alone a political reality.

If you think the answer to the spectacular rise in UKIPs support is that ¼ people in the population are evil racist bigots, then why even engage?
If that were true, they'd be no point discussing anything except perhaps why the BNP missed out on so many votes if this is the case!

The truth is 25% of people don't feel represented by the 3 main parties for varying reasons and one of those reasons is the fact that the issues they worry about have been ignored in favour of things they don't care about at all.
And then they are told the things they’d like to question actually makes them racists or idiots and are not up for discussion anyway. Every major party has policies on immigration controls. Immigration control is a perfectly legitimate political issue to be concerned about and hold a view on. Different countries all around the world handle immigration in their own way and a debate exists over which model people think works. I suppose you could start writing off entire nations as total racists starting with all those who have a points system though?

chibi Fri 03-May-13 23:03:38

this is what makes this kind of scary- people totally mean what they say. i have been reading this thread and others, and i haven't read much reassuring stuff. my fellow citizens have a low opinion of people like me. they are not shy about sharing it.

for all that people claim that you aren't allowed to say anything bad about immigration, i can't say as how that has stopped them doing so anyway. my 10+ years here have seen a near constant stream of media stories about how, in essence, people like me are ruining everything in the country.

i guess all this rhetoric looks different when the sharp end is pointing at you

BollyGood Fri 03-May-13 23:04:35

I do not feel represented as I stated above but I would never vote UKIP merely for the fact that they are clearly sexist, homophobic and will marginalise vulnerable people whatever their race.

BollyGood Fri 03-May-13 23:05:36

Precisely chibi. Racism and homophobia scares the shit out of me.

BollyGood Fri 03-May-13 23:09:17

Scare blush

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 23:14:19

"i guess all this rhetoric looks different when the sharp end is pointing at you"

Actually, in my community, people feel that the sharp end is pointing at them. Not saying that is right. But that is how they feel.

Will it ever be possible to discuss immigration, and the impact of immigration as the seperate issues I see them as ?

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 23:17:01

"Racism and homophobia scares the shit out of me."

Me too, Bolly, and I'm a nasty right leaning confused bloke.confused

Lazyjaney Fri 03-May-13 23:18:26

"Wallison reducing the whole debate to 'UKIP voters are all racists and that’s all there is to it' isn't even an interesting discussion let alone a political reality"

Tsk Tiggy, she is demonstrating the tolerance, intelligence and rational reasoning the far left is justly famed for smile

I suspect by next week the Labour Party will have adjusted it's position enough to be "racist" in her view.....

BollyGood Fri 03-May-13 23:19:22

Immigration can easily be discussed without connotations of racism. It is how we discuss it and with what attitude to the future which is important.

BollyGood Fri 03-May-13 23:20:20

Why are you Nasty,things? Who thinks you are?

chibi Fri 03-May-13 23:20:39

discuss away. i really don't think people want to discuss with immigrants so much as they want to talk about them.

again, people in your town will now have politicians falling all over themselves to cater to their fears. good for them, that's democracy.

i have yet to see anything here to make me think that life is not going to get mire unpleasant and difficult for myself and people like me. instead, i am kind of worried.

BollyGood Fri 03-May-13 23:23:58

That's my point chibi, UKIP want to do away with diversity,they are not open to discussion. It's a shame immigration and immigrants are blamed for problems which are not their fault.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 23:30:39

I just don't see it as helpful.
If you want to find out why people voted as they did then you ask them about the issues that bother them and what it is they feel UKIP offers them that the other parties don't.

And if you are a party leader and have any sense (an optimistic view I know), then you try to address those issues in way that forces change or reassures people that the existing policies fit their criteria in order to win UKIP voters back to main parties again

Whereas if you just take the view that you should ignore them or insult them because they're racists loons, what does that achieve?
The numbers voting for them are significant in political terms. They represent a large proportion of all people who feel their views are not met by the 3 main parties. On the basis that you have to assume 25% of British people haven't suddenly morphed into racist homophobes, you have to ask instead what it is that has led them to vote this way and perhaps seek to address it.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 23:31:40

" to cater to their fears"

A little bit patronising, Chibi. These are not fears, they are our reality.

To many people, it seems like the whole of the apparatus of the state has been designed to "cater to your fears".

But if I have offended you, I apologise. It was not my intention.

chibi Fri 03-May-13 23:37:15

i already know why they voted as they did. if it were anything other than immigration (and the eu, and marriage for gay people) there would have been a similar surge in votes for other parties like the greens, or independents.

there weren't.

the three big parties will fall all over themselves to adopt policies to sway this group of the electorate toward their parties. as they no doubt should that's how democracy works.

it is probably selfish of me to be so concerned about my own happiness and wellbeing. sorry. i can't help it. i worry about what this will mean for me and my family.

i feel like no one is ever going to listen to my fears, because right now giving a toss about (or even listening to)the concerns of an immigrant is not a vote winner.

i am a citizen too. it probably won't matter though.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 23:38:30

"Immigration can easily be discussed without connotations of racism"

I really wish it could. BUT. It seems that if you seek to ask questions about the impact of immigration, you are deemed to be a racist, by some.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 23:41:24

"i feel like no one is ever going to listen to my fears"

Chibi, how did things ever get so fucked up that we can both feel that way ?sad

chibi Fri 03-May-13 23:45:06

so which party can i vote for which has as part of their manifesto that i am not a scrounging scumbag who is wrecking the country?

you have a choice of parties to vote for who have as their platform that immigrants are bad for britain.

you are worried about being called a racist.

i am worried about personal safety.

i would quite gladly trade places. i can't.

i guess i can just hope for the best and trust in the famous british sense of fair play. confused

Lazyjaney Fri 03-May-13 23:46:00

I don't think some people on this thread have yet grasped the size of this - 25% of the vote, from near nothing. That is huge, it's going to be a game changer in British politics for quite a few years.

I wonder what the LibDems will do, this must be a massive blow to them.

tiggytape Fri 03-May-13 23:48:36

chibi - UKIP are getting a lot of coverage because it is rare for a protest party to attract disaffected voters from the left and the right.

However, others like the Greens have made gains too - in Surrey and Essex down South and probably elsewhere too. You have to consider though that they were way ahead of UKIP to start with so their gains seem modest even though their seat total is pretty respectable.

It isn't a UKIP clean sweep by any means. If anything the real focus today should have been the Lib Dems complete obliteration in some areas and Labour's pretty modest gains (or eroded margins) at a time they should be able to attract huge support - especially if they want to win overall in 2 years time. UKIP are getting a lot of press because it is quite a new phenomenon not because the country is going to be under Nigel Farage any time soon.

chibi Fri 03-May-13 23:51:41

the other parties (who do have a larger share of the vote) are watching, and listening, and will be amending their policies accordingly.

the uk will not be led by nigel farage, but it will be led by people who follow his stance on immigrants and immigration.

fair enough, that's how democracy works. i am glad that people will feel listened to.

i am unsettled to say the least. oh well.

pickledginger Fri 03-May-13 23:54:58

The phrases on the lat page were from this. From 1960.

BollyGood Fri 03-May-13 23:56:11

Too be honest things I think Chibi has more valid 'fears' than you if UKIP were to come to power.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 03-May-13 23:57:52

" i am glad that people will feel listened to."

Chibi, that's pretty much all I want.

Don't, by the way,right off our sense of fair play. I would defend your personal safety to the detriment of my own.

I am not, I think, alone in this.

pickledginger Sat 04-May-13 00:00:23

All discrimination and prejudice has it's roots in seeing people not as individuals but as part of some greater group; some homogenous mass.

BollyGood Sat 04-May-13 00:00:58

I do wonder if 25% of the people who vote for UKIP have actually read their policies in detail and realise how their everyday lives would be affected.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 00:01:31

write- autocorrect.............. blush

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 00:07:12

Bolly, agreed. A lot of it is suspect. Some of it is just weird. This has been a very big protest vote, I think. The Lib Dems, normally the recipient of these votes, are a toxic brand, indistinguishable from the Tories in many ways.

Another vote for a genuine, non mad, 3rd way in British politics.

Lazyjaney Sat 04-May-13 00:09:31

"I do wonder if 25% of the people who vote for UKIP have actually read their policies in detail and realise how their everyday lives would be affected"

I am sure those who voted Ukip read their policies with the same attention as those who voted for every other party.

And I don't think there are now going to be pogroms etc, the UK is one of the most tolerant countries going - this was a protest vote on a whole number of levels.

pickledginger Sat 04-May-13 00:13:23

I live in an area with a very large Eastern European population. The impact? I have an amazing hairdresser. If my car goes funny I don't fret because there's a reliable local garage that will make time for emergencies. The local schools OFSTED reports have improved over the last few years, particularly in behaviour though the Catholic one is very full, largely because 15 years ago it was struggling to find Catholic children to fill it and it now it has had to expand to meet demand. The supermarkets have an extra section with nice pickles. And I have noticed more lovely tall young men around.

The funds local authorities receive from central government have been slashed while, at the same time, they've been prevented from raising council tax. Services have been cut because spending has been cut. If those born overseas weren't here working and paying their taxes there would be even less funding available.

BollyGood Sat 04-May-13 00:15:32

things Agreed.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 00:16:54

I live in an area with a very large Eastern European population. The impact? I have an amazing hairdresser.

biscuit

BollyGood Sat 04-May-13 00:17:51

lazy I get the protest vote mentality but what if in the future a party like UKIP really did have control.

pickledginger Sat 04-May-13 00:19:30

Unfortunately one impact of the changes in local population has been for a particular pub in a very part of the nearby town to become the haunt of the BNP or whatever they're calling themselves now. It has English flags in the windows and 'proud to be English' banners. It's always got people standing outside smoking, from the time it opens on a Monday morning. While the people they object to are busy working.

wreckitralph Sat 04-May-13 00:56:22

chibi, I actually think you are worrying unnecessarily. You seem to think that a vote against immigration is a slap in the face for people who are of a different colour or were born somewhere else. It's not. No one here is saying "chuck all the foreigners out". What people are saying is that our services, our NHS and our infrastructure is overburdened and that we cannot accommodate any more people coming to the UK until we have our act together. As a citizen who has paid years of taxes and I presume has a British passport, you are just as British as the rest of us and you too will be affected by more immigration.

I think you will find that most British people are not anti-foreigner, they want a good few years of shutting the front door, house renovation, spring cleaning and getting their act together and telling anyone who knocks on the door to come back later as we are all a bit busy at the moment.

garlicyoni Sat 04-May-13 01:44:05

There has been some weird shit on this thread about the impact of immigration - and much more, even weirder, shit on social media and in the papers.

There's no evidence that immigration places a burden on the UK economy.
It is not easy to wangle benefits as a new arrival here, neither is it easy in other European countries. There are reciprocal agreements but they're complicated. That business about overseas child benefit affected a very small number of families, and there are English parents benefiting from the reverse situation overseas.

Those Eastern European immigrants who make it into the papers with their lavish benefits lifestyles - you know those are fake, don't you? I posted links to the online portfolios of the actresses paid by the Sun and Mail to appear in them.

The idea that immigration caused house price hikes in Brixton hardly bears a mention, but I'm still reeling from that so here goes! Brixton has gone up because it's trendy and has fantastic transport links both into and out of town. It's only 6 miles to Westminster, a cheap cab and I walked it often enough when I lived there.

The agricultural market town where I live now, by contrast, is frantically building houses to try and attract more people in - this is despite a huge influx of Eastern Euro farm workers - and you can easily buy a nice 3-bed semi for under £150k, in fact you'd be spoilt for choice. This town is dying on its feet for lack of residents, has been for ages, and the countryside echoes with lonely sheep. England is not fucking overcrowded.

BollyGood Sat 04-May-13 01:50:36

Voting for UKIP is not simply a matter of voting against immigration. They are using this hot topic as a way to ensnare voters. Hopefully people will read a little bit more about them and vote elsewhere. Tactical or otherwise it's dangerous to put power into the hands of bigots. I agree wreckit there are better ways of dealing with the issues of immigration and how it may affect certain aspects within a country, there are also better ways of talking about it,but if you were part of the hot topic I think it would bother you. This is what people do not seem to understand. It's all very well saying 'oh this won't happen or it's you are just worrying about something which may not happen etc etc...' But if it involves something close to your heart whether it is that you may be an immigrant or gay or a woman it matters not but when you are the subject of a policy which may affect you or your children in the future you do worry and at times take action. It is how change happens and progress is achieved.

pickledginger Sat 04-May-13 02:04:39

I'd really be interested to see any evidence of this negative stuff that immigration is supposed to be bringing. The differences here are, as I said, seeing extra stuff in the supermarket and hearing Polish spoken.

I grew up in an area with a Polish club, a throw back to post war immigration and went to school with DC with Polish surnames. Now, many years later, there are more people with Polish surnames. It makes bugger all difference to my life.

RubyGates Sat 04-May-13 06:19:07

I would like a referrendum on Europe.
NOW.

Not in a few years, but NOW. ASAP

I'm fed up with spin...and soon....and maybe and a "commitment after the next GE"

I want one of the main parties to nail its colours to the mast and offer that.

In the mean-time I will not vote for :
a) A bunch of corrupt, lying toe-rags who have erroded our personal freedoms, created unworkable statutes, got rid of habeus corpus and, to a certain extent, trial by jury; b0rked our education syststem, and dragged us into an illegal war costing billions of pounds and countless lives. Nor will I vote for their successors who have about as much empathy for and understanding of the British WORKING class as a brain-damaged guinea pig.

b) The current bunch. (Who I thought might at least have some good ideas about inspiring and supporting ordinary small start-up businesses to help create more employment and liquidity within our stagnant economy).

c) The mealy-mouthed, smug Lib-Dems who won't even begin to listen to the desire of a large number of the British on the subject of a European referrendum. Which is a shame because I've always been a bit of a "left-of-centre" leaner. (Like all Pro-Europeans they don't want a referrendum because they are afraid of the outcome.)

d) The Greens. Unworkable, expensive (proabably well meaning) Communism lite. By the back door. (And yes, I did read the manifesto).

I did not have a vote the other day. But as you see, I'm disenfranchised, hopping mad and utterly frustrated with the current attitude of all the major parties.

The only issue that seems to differentiate the parties to any great extent is that of Europe. The only party willing to translate my vote into an outraged protest, "two-fingers-up to the current-system" is UKIP.
I don't want them in power for many of the reasons listed above. But I do want my voice to be heard. So unless the other parties start listening, I may well vote for them next time.

ElenorRigby Sat 04-May-13 07:37:18

Well said Ruby Gates! I could have wrote that myself.
I am utterly fed up and hopping mad with the smug shower of shit career politicians that pollute parliament.

But as a dual national daughter of immigrants, with a mixed race DP, mixed race DD and mixed race DSD could I possibly vote for UKIP?

Damn right I will and so will DP!

I stand guilty of a thoughtcrime! grin Newspeaker's can go screw themselves! wink

gabsid Sat 04-May-13 08:02:21

Where I live UKIP has done very well, especially in rural areas where in some they have actually won! These areas are pretty much populated by white British people.

Our city has a bit more variety and cultural mix, but still very few immigrants but UKIP didn't get a foot in there at all, they only did well in the more deprived areas of the city.

gabsid Sat 04-May-13 08:05:44

I feel horrified to think that they have a real chance to win an election. And I can't help seeing similarities to what happened in Europe in the 1930s.

ComposHat Sat 04-May-13 08:14:32

Gabs they have fuck all chance of wining the election. In a mid-term council election (notorious for protest votes) held mostly in right-leaning leafy shires, they couldn't take control of a single council.

Even if the share and pattern of voting was replicated in a general election (which is unlikely as protest voters tend to 'go home' in general elections ) they will not win a single seat.

They are irritating rather than dangerous, unless you are a Tory MP in a marginal seat.

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 04-May-13 08:17:47

pickledginger
"All discrimination and prejudice has it's roots in seeing people not as individuals but as part of some greater group; some homogenous mass."

You mean like classing 25% of voters racist?

Xenia Sat 04-May-13 08:18:00

Farage knows and has said they won't win a general election but the views of those who are in favour of their liberatarian and flat tax policies may well be taken more into account because of the support they have had and that is no bad thing. It is in fact democracy and how it works.

RubyGates Sat 04-May-13 08:26:20

PS, I probably wouldn't vote for them if I didn't live somewhere where a "pig in a red rosette" is the most likely candidate to be elected.

Midlifecrisisarefun Sat 04-May-13 08:27:21

Does anyone seriously think there aren't bigots/racists/ignorant people in the main parties either. My son dated a girl from a second generation immigrant family, HE was subjected to vile abuse from her family and in particular her mother....she was a labour councillor...hmm

gabsid Sat 04-May-13 08:30:32

Boney - I am not sure what else I could call those 25% of voters and even more in some of our rural white British areas where you can count immigrants on one hand. I am not sure they even qualify to have an opinion on immigration.

outtolunchagain Sat 04-May-13 08:32:17

Having read their manifesto I cannot believe that any woman would vote for UKIP , they want a return to the 1950s and women chained to the kitchen sink.

They want grammar schools and a privatised nHS and the removal of the right to maternity leave .

The most depressing part of this whole event is the fact that time and again people who have voted for UKIP have, when asked why on TV,radio in newspapers and on forums like these ,shown that they have no idea what they have voted for ,they haven't read the manifesto ,quite often they have voted for the complete opposite of what they thought .shock

ComposHat Sat 04-May-13 08:33:08

Xenia

As much as they would like to affect a massive transfer from poor to wealthy, I'm sure even Dave n' Gideon would be stupid enough to implement a flat tax policy, it would be electoral suicide. Poll Tax 2.0 and then some.

I'd love to seem them try selling that to the vast majority (who are basic rate tax payers) 'Right plebs, we are going to whack your income tax contributions right up, so that we can give an even bigger tax cut to our millionaire chums.'

UKIP aren't a libertarian party, their views on gay marriage being an absolute case in point. Surely personal liberty involves marrying a person of your own choosing and it should be no business of the state? They are a nasty, opportunist hardline right wing party.

If the Tories do try to lurch to the right to attract UKIP defectors they will risk alienating centrist floating voters. They'd also end up out of power faster than they thought, as their coalition partners wouldn't wear it.

gabsid Sat 04-May-13 08:35:31

I agree, but what people saw and what I saw was big posters advertising 'immigration, enough is enough' or something like that. I had to laugh looking around me not having seen a single immigrant for ages.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 08:48:10

"The two are mutually exclusive? Some" natives" also occupy social housing, and some rent privately, surely. Why should this be any different for migrants,if they fulfill the criteria. btw - I don't "think" migrant workers in my town occupy social housing - I know."

I thought your council doesn't collect nor share data about the provenance of its tennants, so how do you know?

As it is, the idea of migrants being handed the keys to a council house as soon as they arrive are a myth.

If from the EU you're normally entitled to funds from your home country to seek a job, if you haven't found anything in that time, funding stops and you have to return. Private rental is the norm for migrant workers.

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 04-May-13 08:58:43

gabsid
"I am not sure they even qualify to have an opinion on immigration."

That in itself is a scary view.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 09:10:43

'outtolunchagain Sat 04-May-13 08:32:17

Having read their manifesto I cannot believe that any woman would vote for UKIP , they want a return to the 1950s and women chained to the kitchen sink.'

They don't actually though do they... Or you'd be able to provide a reference. Can you do that?

lljkk Sat 04-May-13 09:10:49

"two-fingers-up to the current-system" is UKIP

Sounds familiar. Friend who has been canvassing on doorsteps assessed all the UKIP voters he met as "miserable". Not miserable poor or miserable depressed just superduper miserable negative about everything. Better described as the "disenchanted with everything" party rather than believing in anything.

I don't understand people who prefer to be defined by what they don't believe in rather than what they do endorse. It's like the ultimate in culture of resentment.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 09:20:31

'RubyGates Sat 04-May-13 06:19:07

I did not have a vote the other day. But as you see, I'm disenfranchised, hopping mad and utterly frustrated with the current attitude of all the major parties.'

Why didn't you vote? Was it because you don't feel that you actually have a choice? Or was it because you felt that if you did vote it wouldn't matter (ie you would vote for a independent).

Would the AV system, mooted a few years back) have made any difference to your choice?

claig Sat 04-May-13 09:22:10

'Friend who has been canvassing on doorsteps assessed all the UKIP voters he met as "miserable".'

Well Nigel Farage doesn't look miserable as he smiles and enjoys his numerous pints in hostelries and drinking dens throughout the land.

The taxi driver shown on TV who made a thumbs up sign and shouted "Go on, Nigel" didn't look miserable.

The people I saw at the polling booths didn't look miserable.

The only people who look miserable are the politicos in other parties who have got the message that 25% of the voters are fed up with them and the fact that they don't represent the people.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 09:24:33

Lazarus she said she didn't have a vote - that sounds to me as if she didn't vote because she isn't allowed to.

claig Sat 04-May-13 09:24:41

' It's like the ultimate in culture of resentment.'

The only "culture of resentment" that I can see is from the sore losers who disrespect the people and disrespect democracy and the voice of the tens of thousands of people who made an effort to vote and have their voice heard.

Lazyjaney Sat 04-May-13 09:24:41

"I don't understand people who prefer to be defined by what they don't believe in rather than what they do endorse. It's like the ultimate in culture of resentment"

If you endorse any of the main parties you are supporting career politicians whose only belief is personal expediency.

Hence UKIP

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 09:24:48

'lljkk Sat 04-May-13 09:10:49

Sounds familiar. Friend who has been canvassing on doorsteps assessed all the UKIP voters he met as "miserable". Not miserable poor or miserable depressed just superduper miserable negative about everything. Better described as the "disenchanted with everything" party rather than believing in anything.

I don't understand people who prefer to be defined by what they don't believe in rather than what they do endorse. It's like the ultimate in culture of resentment.'

Why is it resentment? They know what they would like to be done by the party they vote for and thus they vote for a part that promises to do it.

Perhaps for too long the current 'big 3' have enjoyed automatic voters, programmed by years of such support (say from family), but now they have overstepped the mark a little.

Took the default support for granted, and not actually listened to what people are asking.

Case in point. Selling of our gold at a stupidly low price, in the imost inefficient way. Allowing complete wastes of money such as the Welsh and Scottish assembly, etc.

claig Sat 04-May-13 09:27:04

'Would the AV system, mooted a few years back) have made any difference to your choice?'

Yes we need an AV system and an even better proportional system than that. We need Farage on the leadership TV debate and we need a democratic fair voting system.

The stitch-up two party system does not reflect the true will of the people.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 09:33:13

Very few citizens of this sceptered Isle are not allowed the vote.

Maybe they are under 18... unless they are incapable of voting or a criminal.

claig Sat 04-May-13 09:33:32

If you add the votes of Tories and UKIP together, you get approx 48%, while Labour and the LibDems together made up about 43%.

But even though, the right is the majority, some of the flint-faced former communists may get back into power and be able to continue to wreck the country and its liberties due to our first past the post system that does not reflect the will of the people.

RubyGates Sat 04-May-13 09:35:24

Lazzarus, I didn't vote because we didnt have any elections in our area.

And I've explained why I wouldn't and couldn't vote for any of the major parties in the future, unless they change their stance on many core issues and a European Referrendum in particular.

In many ways I am politically defined by an abscence. A void, a dark shadow of the political soul, if you will.

claig Sat 04-May-13 09:38:57

'A void, a dark shadow of the political soul, if you will.'

Are you referring to New Labour? If so, I am in agreement with you.

RubyGates Sat 04-May-13 09:39:59

The political system in general. New Labour in particular yes.

claig Sat 04-May-13 09:40:57

Got you, and am with you on New Labour in particular. wink

ElenorRigby Sat 04-May-13 09:43:34

The Labour Party died with John Smith.

gabsid Sat 04-May-13 09:44:19

If I had voted to protest I would have voted for the greens, but never a right-wing party.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 09:44:25

'Lazyjaney Sat 04-May-13 09:24:41

If you endorse any of the main parties you are supporting career politicians whose only belief is personal expediency.'

There is that aswell. I wont say it was ever thus, but the whole point of a politician is to serve their country.

There should be no such thing as a 'career politician' but we now are 'represented' by people who have started as an intern in an MPs office NOT on the shopfloor of a company manufacturing goods, or promoting Britian.

The CS are in place to provide continuity (ie form and process, or etiquete at international events).

After that it all down to the personality of the person involved in teh discussion. Some of our MPs have the personality of slime that oozes under the door.

Perhaps we should have a term limit on those who would serve?

And I'd go through expenses like a case of ebola too. Two houses? Er, no. If you don't live in your constituency, should you represent it? When in London we'll sort out a travel lodge type abode, maybe a few families houses could be temp borrowed.

Excluding the PM and those in cabinet who may spend a lot longer in London.

Using modern tech such as VTCs MPs could do the HoC thing from anywhere in the country, coming together for importatn stufff.

claig Sat 04-May-13 09:46:19

And it is far more than just 25% who are cheesed off with the mainstream parties. There were millions who couldn't even be bothered to vote, so disillusioned have they become. And very many of those would probably also have voted UKIP if they had made the effort to turn out.

ComposHat Sat 04-May-13 09:46:55

We need Farage on the leadership TV debate

No we don't, UKIP don't have a single MP and are unlikely to secure one any time soon, let alone forming a government.

claig Sat 04-May-13 09:47:30

'If I had voted to protest I would have voted for the greens, but never a right-wing party.'

That is the beauty of democracy. You vote for whom you want, and others vote for whom they prefer.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 09:49:54

Lazarus

"Very few citizens of this sceptered Isle are not allowed the vote.

Maybe they are under 18... unless they are incapable of voting or a criminal."

Are you aware that there weren't elections everywhere?

claig Sat 04-May-13 09:50:02

'UKIP don't have a single MP'

That is because of our electoral system. UKIP got a higher proportion of the vote than the LibDems, and yet Clegg is on the leadership debate telling us how he believes in "fairness".

It is not "fair" to prevent Farage making a case for his policies and trouncing some of the progressives who preach "fairness".

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 09:52:05

'claig Sat 04-May-13 09:33:32

If you add the votes of Tories and UKIP together, you get approx 48%, while Labour and the LibDems together made up about 43%.'

Which is why the system is unfair...

Two parties (Tories and Wigs) one gets 51% the other 49%, then the majority have their way...

Three parties (Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem) and 34% buys 1 party a win, but 66% of people (the majority) didn't want that party.

It carries on in that vein.

That's why I couldn't understand why the AV system was seen as so bad.

The lowest voted for party, was struck off, and their voters reappraised in to the remaining parties.

Until a true majority decision was made.

It would have made things very interesting for the politicos though. Fancy actually having to give a f**k about what their constituents actually wanted.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 09:55:34

WW,

Yes. Oddly enough I was.

claig Sat 04-May-13 09:56:39

Yes it is an unfair system that suits the main two parties and hinders the LibDems, the Greens, UKIP and other small parties.

Protest votes like we have witnessed show the system up for what it is - "unfair".

The elites and the chumocracy hope that everything will be forgotten by the time of the election and that it will be business as usual between the major two parties as the voters are corralled back into the pen like sheep and vote for Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

lljkk Sat 04-May-13 10:01:14

The American Republican party has had decades of successfully pitching themselves as the "Washington outsiders", untainted good guys. Then they get in power and spend wildly in their chosen interests (defence, tax cuts, boondoggles), leaving no money for government to actually achieve anything in terms of social care, health or education when the Democrats get in power.

Thomas Frank has written about this at length.

I am very wary of anyone who sells themselves as the "Uncorrupted outsider" who is supposed to create a government for the people. Its a huge con where I'm from.

ComposHat Sat 04-May-13 10:10:07

UKIP don't have a single MP'

That is because of our electoral system. UKIP got a higher proportion of the vote than the LibDems, and yet Clegg is on the leadership debate telling us how he believes in "fairness"

You could argue that any number of minor parties would have MPs under PR and UKIP's showing in the last general election wasn't spectacular.

As you are a big advocate of democracy, you'll remember that the public roundly rejected PR when it was offered to them in a referendum.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 10:10:32

To be honest UKIP don't seem to be seen as 'uncorrupted'.

Everytime they say or do anything they are accused of being racist and thick.

Or BNP lite.

Which smacks of desperation from the other parties, IMHO.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 10:16:53

*I thought your council doesn't collect nor share data about the provenance of its tennants, so how do you know?

As it is, the idea of migrants being handed the keys to a council house as soon as they arrive are a myth.*

Because they are living next door to me. In a council house.

Or perhaps you think I am making it up?

You are the reason UKIP are doing well. All concerns dismissed, any experience pooh pooed. grin

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 10:17:03

'ComposHat Sat 04-May-13 10:10:07

As you are a big advocate of democracy, you'll remember that the public roundly rejected PR when it was offered to them in a referendum.'

I always found that strange. Wasn't there a lot of smearing? I remember one person claiming PR/AV was unfair, as it should be 'one man one vote'...

They couldn't address the debate that a man with out a vote due to voting for a minority party was just as unfair, and in clear breach of 'One man, one vote'.

In the end they desperately clung to 'it's their descion to vote for a nop hope party'...

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 10:25:37

Do you know for sure the house is owned by the council? For example, I live in a former council house, in the middle of plenty of other council houses, and pay rent to a private landlord who bought it.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 10:28:17

And as for me being the reason the UKIP are doing well - I'm an immigrant. I'm not in a council house, but I had two children and an appendectomy on the NHS, and steal British jobs. So of course, I'm the reason why UKIP doing well, I'm one of those people they want to see gone. I'm just not sure whether they would want to see my children gone, too. At least they've got some Englishness from their father's side.

tiggytape Sat 04-May-13 10:33:09

The AV / PR ship has well and truly sailed. The referendum on the issue showed again that MN opinion is spectacularly out of whack with national opinion - about 75% of MN posters supporting it and the polar opposite happening at the polls (75% against)
And this was AV only - PR didn't get close to being proposed and is very unlikely to now that even the AV version has been firmly declined (I know some voted against AV because it wasn't enough of a change but on the whole the no vote was a genuine no vote for any alteration at all)

I think half the reason MN opinion seems at such odds with what goes on in the country is demographics. Most posters here are female (most UKIP voters are men), most are young or young at heart (most of the voting population is older) but also because a vocal few shout down any discussion to the point that only the 'I agree' posters are left.

When you have people saying that some voters should not be allowed to have an opinion on immigration - that's scary!
When 25% of people are lumped togather and branded racist - that's either scary or scaremongering.
When you have posters saying UKIP voters are thickos who don't know what they're voting for - that may be true. But no different to the vast majority who vote Tory and Labour and couldn't name you a single policy detail if they tried. No different to all those who voted Lib Dem just to abolish university fees but didn't agree with anything else they stand for.

Kneebeefjerky Sat 04-May-13 10:37:59

I do find this There's nothing wrong, there's nothing wrong, there's nothing wrong burying the head in the sand attitude to people's concerns worrying.

IMO the lack of the mainstream parties ability to address these concerns and deal with them basically means one thing. Labour are going to get in at the next election and start their mass immigration and 'inclusivity' policies (which often felt like favouring immigrants over people who were already here). And then people are going to get really pissed off.

And then we're going to end up with a UKIP government of extremists, freaks and nutters. And god knows what kind of awfulness that will lead to.

I am concerned about these issues but I want the mainstream parties to deal with them in a measured fashion. They show no inclination to do so and I suspect this is going to lead to a whole lot of trouble.

tiggytape Sat 04-May-13 10:44:48

Well we're never going to have a UKIP government so I don't think you need to worry about that.

It is possible the Tories could be pushed to the right by yesterday's results which in turn creates more space in the centre and will allow Labour to appeal to more people. This makes a Labour government more likely in 2015. Certainly more likely than it is now when it is very doubtful they could seize overall power with current levels of support (Lib Dems already seem to be gearing up for a Lib-Lab pact)

However it is likely Labour will (and already have) responded to concerns on some UKIP issues too. All 3 main parties will take on board yesterday's message purely because they cannot ignore people in those sorts of numbers and hope to win.

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 04-May-13 10:51:32

gabsid

Do you live in a "white rural" area?

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 10:55:52

'tiggytape Sat 04-May-13 10:44:48

Well we're never going to have a UKIP government so I don't think you need to worry about that.'

Google '1930's Germany'. The National Socialist Party were seen as a joke at one time too.

tiggytape Sat 04-May-13 11:02:24

Lazar – O.K –leaving the slight hysterics aside, I am referring to our First Past the Post system that means, even if UKIP polled large numbers of votes, they would not be converted into seats.
In the UK, the government is formed by taking the majority of seats in Parliament. That is why Labour can win an overall majority with 35% of the votes but the Tories can’t.
UKIP, like all small parties, will find it hard to win even 1 seat. There is no way they could win enough to form a government – that is just a fact based on the system we have for converting votes in parliamentary make up.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 11:04:41

'WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 10:28:17

And as for me being the reason the UKIP are doing well - I'm an immigrant. I'm not in a council house, but I had two children and an appendectomy on the NHS, and steal British jobs. So of course, I'm the reason why UKIP doing well, I'm one of those people they want to see gone. I'm just not sure whether they would want to see my children gone, too. At least they've got some Englishness from their father's side.'

I think you are too harsh on yourself.

Immigration isn't a bad thing, nor is it to be feared.

That said, an open doors policy and allowing non-integration is foolish.

There is no requirement for forms (for various government functions) to written in half a dozen languages either.

Kneebeefjerky Sat 04-May-13 11:07:04

I was going to post that too LazarussLozenge. One of the things that struck me about this election was how the voting patterns were mirroring exactly those of the Nazi's in the run up to them being elected.

In 1928 they were a marginal party polling 2.6%. By 1933 they were in power.

The 25% of the total vote that they got in these recent elections reminded me of the 1930 elections after the financial crisis in which the Nazi's polled 18%. Does that situation remind you of anything?

In theory first past the post should protect us from this but if the economy gets worse, or if Labour go back to an open door policy. Yes, I do think it's possible they could build on that 25% of the vote if things get worse.

I think from UKIPs point of view Labour getting back in is the best thing that could happen for them as it will give people more frustrations which they will use UKIP as an outlet for.

I really think unless concerns on these issues are addressed in a measured, balanced way by the main parties we could well end up with them being dealt with by extremists and extreme measures.

Viviennemary Sat 04-May-13 11:11:40

I expect the Lib Dems won't be quite so keen on proportional representation now.

Kneebeefjerky Sat 04-May-13 11:11:43

Tiggytape, they came second in by elections in South Shields, Eastleigh, Rotherham and Middlesborough in the last 8 months.

In the months preceding that they came third in Croydon and Corby.

In Eastleigh they were only slightly over 4% behind the Lib Dems, in

They're not that far from converting these votes into seats.

chibi Sat 04-May-13 11:14:54

none of this is reassuring

i keep a small emergency fund in a bank account in my native country, for any kind of contigency

i am kind of glad i do now

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 11:18:19

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 11:22:22

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 11:24:09

LazarusLozenge - I would have thought that leaflets in several languages are overall cheaper than people not being able to understand important information.
Not saying that people shouldn't learn the language of their country of residence, just that it takes time, and people shouldn't be left hanging until they achieved near native competency.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 11:27:58

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 11:35:14

Do you know for sure the house is owned by the council? For example, I live in a former council house, in the middle of plenty of other council houses, and pay rent to a private landlord who bought it.

The sheer arrogance, and assumption of my stupidity is what characterises attitudes I encounter when discussing these issues.

FWIW, when my neighbours need repairs or maintenance, it is done by the council. In a council van. My neighbours, who are very nice people, are delighted that they were housed by the council. This points, in my untutored opinion,to them being council tenants.

My objection is not to the fact of their tenancy. Good luck to them. They are a young,hard working family, doing the best they can for their DC.

My problem is with the duplicitous attitude of the council, who are,in every other area, incredibly keen on gathering stats. The council insist they do not know how many migrant workers are in social housing in our town, as they do not gather this information.

Now this is either A) Because they have decided in this particular case,not to keep stats, so they cannot reveal the levels of migrant tenancies or B) They do know,and are not telling.

Incidentally, if, WW, as you suggest there are no migrant workers in social housing in my town, I suspect the council, in the current climate,would be only too eager to tell us this.

I wonder why they aren't?

unlucky83 Sat 04-May-13 11:41:47

Not read all this ..but a couple of points..
My DM (70s) was a labour voter, turned tory..maybe a UKIP now...
We were brought up to believe that you never judge anyone on appearance etc...never a racist - but now says things that make me cringe...about immigrants.
I don't live near them but when I go to visit I can see why she might feel the way she does (we don't have many immigrants where I live - but I have lived in London) ...there is large (expanding) Pakistani community and if you go into the town centre without a doubt that community outnumber 'white' people..and when most of the white people open their mouths you find they are Eastern European...Different cultures with different 'rules' ..and it must all be a bit frightening for her ...
I have to admit to being hmm a little while ago - can't remember exactly, a health issue on Radio 4 and they said how terrible it was that a family member had to translate for them - they should have access to a translator....so the NHS should employ interpreters in a range of languages on 24 hr call just in case someone needs them??? Or should we expect someone that lives here to learn and understand English? Or accept maybe a visit to the hospital might be more traumatic?
Also talking about SMP etc -someone earlier quoted a UKIP MEP saying you would be mad to employ a woman of child bearing age ...I'm a woman and a mother with experience of running a small business - and I have to agree...or at least I can see the argument...
And it isn't about SMP payments - firstly if a woman gets pregnant the employer has to allow them reasonable time off for antenatal appointments...fair enough ...but what if the work is time sensitive ...you have to get someone else to cover that person...and you only have two staff -other staff worked harder to cover? What if they do heavy lifting etc you have to offer them alternative work -what if you haven't got anything suitable? You have to go through the process of recruitment to fill their absence and retrain etc as necessary. You accrue holiday pay during maternity leave that your employer will have to pay (or give you equal paid time off) - even though they have to pay the person who is doing your work holiday pay too ... you will have to look after your DCs during your holidays in the future -so why is maternity leave different? For various reasons the rest of the staff have worked really hard and you want to pay them a bonus...but you have to pay the person on maternity leave the same bonus?
I think we as women (and parents in general) have to realise that you can't have your cake and eat it...talking about big business making thousands/millions in profit is one thing - but a small business where the any 'profit' is the employer's wage - that extra holiday comes straight out of the employers pocket...

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 11:42:32

But why does it matter whether migrants are in the council houses or not, unless you suggest that migrants should have less entitlement to council housing than British born people? What would you try to gain from the stats?

Lazyjaney Sat 04-May-13 11:44:17

Those harking back to the 1930s - remember that for the Fascists to win also required monumental corruption, incompetence and ignoring of the impact of the depression on the working class by the political elite of the era.

That could never happen again in Europe, right?

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 11:52:11

Then they can fund the translations...

If I moved to (say) France, I would expect the burden of translation to be on my good self, rather than on the population I wished to live with.

Too many not only can't sprechen the lingo, but wont learn it.

I shocked a Polish lady in a Schlep once. She looked worried, and wanted her son(?) to talk to me, fortunately I've spent a few weeks in Poland and I have a policy of learning some of the lingo.

A hearty Djien Dobra later, followed by some basic numbers and 'euro finger' later I had my Polish beer and sausages... 7 of each infact... As I couldn't remember the number I wanted... oh, well.

Nice sausages though. And good beer.

A hearty farewell, and soon became a regular, and we had fun learning the two languages together (she would speak to me in English, I to her in Polish).

All good clean fun.

I like the Corsicans for a similar reason, a little bit of an attempt of the language and an attempt at eating local food sees them bending over backwards for you.

tiggytape Sat 04-May-13 11:56:04

It is also worth saying that whilst UKIP is a one-policy party, that one policy is actually leaving the EU not immigration per se (although the two do overlap in some areas).

A lot here have focussed on the immigration policy but many original supporters of UKIP voted for one reason only – to lead Britain out of any formal links with Europe.
And given the pretty horrendous mess in the Euro zone right now, this view has gained more and more support in Britain over the past 2 years.

The remedy to financial collapse in Europe is now seen to be further centralisation. Fiscal union without governments all pulling the same way just doesn’t work. So many in Europe feel or fear much greater central regulation will happen.
The idea of being forced into even closer European ties is something a lot of people in Britain are very much against for all sorts of reasons. We’ve always been reluctant on the issue and now it’s gone pear-shaped in the EU, we’re even less keen to be more involved.

The ‘we’re well out of that’ sentiment is pretty rife at the moment when looking at the riots in Greece and the job losses in Spain. UKIP is the only party that really reflect that at all (assuming you don’t believe the Tories will gain enough seats to win outright in 2015 and hold a referendum on it which most people don’t).

chibi Sat 04-May-13 11:56:41

having a complicated medical procedure explained to you is a bit different than haggling over sausages hmm

unlucky83 Sat 04-May-13 12:06:57

I think I agree with Lazarus - they should pay for the translator...
I was thinking about the French thing ...my French is appalling, hopefully would improve - but if I went to live there and ended up in hospital it would be pretty awful - but not once would it cross my mind to blame the hospital or government or society...I think that is why I found it so annoying (up to that point they had my sympathy)....

Sunnywithshowers Sat 04-May-13 12:14:16

I feel completely at odds with our current politicians. I'd have supported labour back in the day: however, since 1997 and 'New Labour' I don't believe that labour and I share the same values.

I voted Green. Our lovely Green councillor (who listens to concerns and isn't a Tory) achieved 56% in the county council elections for our area. Hurrah!

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 12:20:15

unlucky - so you believe that someone, unless they have the funds to pay for a translator should not get treatment (as they can't give informed consent)? Doesn't that fly in the face of the "free at the point of delivery" policy?

(And that's not even taking into account the potential follow on cost of no/delayed treatment)

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 12:25:27

"unless you suggest that migrants should have less entitlement to council housing than British born people? What would you try to gain from the stats?"

TBH, and I realise that this might offend some,in my heart of hearts, I suppose I do think that migrant workers should have less entitlement to council housing than British born people.

Does this make make a racist ? confused

Dawndonna Sat 04-May-13 12:31:18

eu myths debunked
Just makes for a bit of interesting reading.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 12:35:20

things

firstly, you need to get out of your head that immigration has anything to do with race. This thinking doesn't make you a racist, just a xenophobe.

Secondly, why do you think the place of birth matters so much? EU-immigrants have the same rights* (and responsibilities) as any citizen of the member state they choose to live in, because of the free movement policy.

That's not only true for people coming to the UK, but also UK citizens moving abroad. It's reciprocal.

Your thinking that place of birth matters can't be to do with whether people pay in, or not, either. Unless you believe that young people from families which live on benefits, who haven't had a job yet should be less entitled to help than others.

chibi Sat 04-May-13 12:36:38

i have ben here working for 10+ years, contributing etc. i am a citizen.

i am an immigrant.

should i have access to council housing?

maybe when I have been here contributing another 50 years? maybe never?

it becomes increasingly clear that you are a citizen, i am a citizen-ette. not quite on the same level as someone born here.

fair enough.

again, your biggest concern is whether someone might call you a racist. like that is the worst thing that could happen to anyone as a result of all of this.

don't worry, i won't call you any names. feel happy in secure in your democratic choice. people who hold similar views are getting lots of attention from all parties now, good for them.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 12:36:43

Dawndonna,

from that font of impartiality.........The European Commission......grin

Pehaps you would like to reassure us about GM foods by linking to Monsantos website next. wink

Dawndonna Sat 04-May-13 12:39:41

Oh good grief, how rude is that!

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 12:40:26

chibi at least you've got citizenship. I've been working and contributing for 8 years, but have not been able yet to afford applying for citizenship (will set me back about 1k). Which makes me feel even more vulnerable.

I feel I really need to get my act together and apply but at a time where I feel increasingly less welcome, which I find really frustrating.

chibi Sat 04-May-13 12:42:08

oh my goodness widow

this must be really scary for you sad

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 12:45:16

WW,

"That's not only true for people coming to the UK, but also UK citizens moving abroad. It's reciprocal."

Thats the problem. It is in theory, not so much in practice. I would,frankly, be amazed to find many British emigrants living in social housing in Poland, or Bulgaria. For a whole bunch of reasons. Reciprocity only works when the social and economic playing fields are level.

Cibi.

I absolutely no problems with immigrants, who have made this country their home, contribute, and intend staying long term accessing social housing.

Migrant workers, expecting to stay here for 2-3 years, less so.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 12:48:43

'WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 11:42:32

But why does it matter whether migrants are in the council houses or not, unless you suggest that migrants should have less entitlement to council housing than British born people? What would you try to gain from the stats?'

I'll say. Yes, a immigrant should have less entitlement until they've started putting money in to the pot.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 12:51:06

You've got British citizens living all over the EU, so it'd be stupid to only look at Bulgaria and Romania.

Also, interesting that you're happy to just go by assumptions, when it's about UK citizens abroad and suddenly aren't interested in figures anymore.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 12:53:48

Lazarus, and how long, until they should be entitled in your view? What about those living with UK citizens? Should their partners lose their entitlement, or would you generously waive that requirement for them? What about their children?

Do you also want to recall all the rights and entitlements UK citizens have in other EU memberstates?

Have you actually ever thought through the implications of your views or is it all kneejerk?

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 12:54:31

'chibi Sat 04-May-13 12:36:38

i have ben here working for 10+ years, contributing etc. i am a citizen.'

I'd say you are more than welcome here.

Ethnic cleansing isn't likely to occur anytime soon.

RubyGates Sat 04-May-13 12:55:21

I'd actually be fascinated to know how many British ex-pats were currently living in social housing in other parts of the world. Europe especially. How would one find out? Does the desire for these statistics make me a rascist?

<worried>

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 12:56:59

www.aboutimmigration.co.uk/uk-immigrants-state-benefits.html

"The belief that immigrants come to the UK and immediately receive council housing has become increasingly widespread in recent years. It is a belief that far-right political parties have attempted to exploit. However, a survey conducted in 2009 showed that only 1.8% of those living in UK social housing were recent immigrants. (For these purposes “recent” meant those immigrants who had come to the UK within the preceding five years.) A large proportion of these will have come to the UK as refugees. A further 10% of those living in social housing were immigrants who had been in the UK for more than five years.

Whether or not an immigrant will have any entitlement to social housing or housing benefit will depend on a number of factors and, in particular, whether they are subject to any form of immigration control. The entitlement of some asylum seekers to be provided with accommodation while their application is being processed does not, technically, come under the heading of social housing. This entitlement has been governed by separate legislation since 2000 and is determined purely by an individual’s status as an asylum seeker.

"

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 12:59:52

WW,

Absolutely interested in figures. Perhaps you could provide some, for British Citizens, living abroad, accessing social housing in their destination of choice

Bit odd, too, that you seem suddenly interested in figures, after implying that I have no need to ask my local council for these very same figures?

unlucky83 Sat 04-May-13 13:00:36

Widow - yes if that is the case -unless it is emergency treatment.. ..a loan even -in this case they did have a family member translating...
Let face facts how many other countries in the world offer free Health care?
In lots of other countries in the world you won't get treatment unless you can pay ..in this case I don't think it is unreasonable to expect someone to pay for an extra cost to their treatment ...
and definitely think that if you choose to live in a country you should learn the language...and not expect other people to pick up the tab if you don't...or think/feel it is your right- you are wronged - for establishment not to be able provide such a service at the drop of a hat...
(My DP's first language isn't English -lived here for 20 yrs and he speaks English all the time ...sometimes he doesn't understand complex things but knows enough so it they can be re-phrased so he does understand)

Banjo77 Sat 04-May-13 13:02:05

There are a lot more UKIP supporters out there than you think...

eveningharold.com/2013/05/04/will-story/

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 13:02:11

WW,

" conducted in 2009"

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm hmm

chibi Sat 04-May-13 13:09:38

ethnic cleansing is always extremely unlikely to occur, until it occurs.

it also starts with this kind of rhetoric.

unrepeatable events of the never again category have been repeated, elsewhere over and over, on varying degrees of scale.

i am very aware that my citizenship is not equivalent to someone who was born here, and i doubt there would be much outcry if restrictions were placed on it - access to public services for example. i have only been a citizen for 4 years after all. no doubt many would see this as fair.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 13:09:41

'WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 12:53:48

Lazarus, and how long, until they should be entitled in your view? What about those living with UK citizens? Should their partners lose their entitlement, or would you generously waive that requirement for them? What about their children?'

It isn't knee jerk, but it may not be what you wish to hear. British abroad? Let's see. One of my oldest friends has ONLY JUST got his green card in USA, after nearly 10 years. He is married to a US citizen and looks after her child.

I have family members in Bermuda, France, Mauritius, and have friends living in UK from other areas (Taiwan, South Africa and Nepal (Gurkhas))... so obviously I don't have a clue about how any of this affects people.

It is tricky, and there are many varibles (ie children etc). But as a baseline I'd say 5 - 10 years sufficient, with paying in to the pot (themselves or via spouse). Also lessons in Britian. ie British History, culture, language and law. It isn't that long ago I read about immigrants being fleeced out of their new British passports by unscrupulous members of their own comunity.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 13:10:04

Banjo77,

Have fun with the mockery.

Worked for David Cameron, didn't it. grin

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 13:11:41

Cibi,

"no doubt many would see this as fair."

I wouldn't.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 13:18:58

WW,

I wonder how that survey was conducted, what with all these councils "not keeping those stats" and all... hmm

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 13:38:06

'chibi Sat 04-May-13 13:09:38

ethnic cleansing is always extremely unlikely to occur, until it occurs.

it also starts with this kind of rhetoric.

unrepeatable events of the never again category have been repeated, elsewhere over and over, on varying degrees of scale.

i am very aware that my citizenship is not equivalent to someone who was born here, and i doubt there would be much outcry if restrictions were placed on it - access to public services for example. i have only been a citizen for 4 years after all. no doubt many would see this as fair.'

You are a citizen... for 1 day or a 100 years, it matters not. You are a citizen and the full range of privileges that come with that status should be yours.

The reason you hear similar rhetoric is that often such acts are preceded by ignorance of what one group or another groups wishes.

Remembering, throughout history, it doesn't have to be teh native population that do the cleansing...

chibi Sat 04-May-13 13:46:39

oh indeed. once we finish eating all the swans, taking all the jobs/benefits, we will no doubt start attacking native born brits

looks like ukip got here just in time hmm

well, you needn't worry about me assaulting you, i am just a scared, middle aged woman who is now going to actively look in to how i can manage the logistics of going home.

Cookiewise Sat 04-May-13 14:03:31

Why would you only fear right wing parties?

The Nazis were the National SOCIALISTS after all and it is Marxist Miliband who is apparently courting the lovely George Galloway of Respect, a man who is happy to discriminate against individuals who are born in countries that he doesn't like. That to me is a scary reminder of Nazi era policy towards Jews and as a Jew I find it terrifying that the leader of the opposition will court someone like Galloway, however abhorrent his opinions, in order to win a possible seat in the next election.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 14:22:44

chibi, you have no need to be scared.

Alas British media is good at presenting certain images. There isn't a pitch fork wielding mob setting their torches alight as we speak.

By all means look in to how to get home, and I don't mean in order to leave, but if there is any reason to go home. ie family ill, or if there is actually a breakdown in UK.

The Swans thing may seem strange, but many British love them and would regard it as insult if they were harmed. Yes, to a hungry man they are just food, but to a British person they are the Queen's property and it was an example of a foreign person being ignorant of our customs.

If I went to India and gave a cows bum a slap to get them out of the way of my car I wouldn't be 'Mr Popular' would I?

Killing and eating a Quetzal in Central America would probably make the locals upset.

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 14:48:19

I really don't understand why this thread is so centered on immigration.
The policies are laid out quite clearly on their website and make no mention of kicking out anyone who is here legally. Sounds very reasonable to me.

What about their tax policies, anyone have a view on that? It has been shown time and again that a well balanced low income tax generates more income for the government. I like the look of UKIP's policies more and more the more i read about them.

I might even join.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 04-May-13 14:54:28

Haven't the UKIP said that they would only want illegal immigrants to leave? Unless I have missed something vital this isn't ethnic cleansing, or anything like the scale that many are making out on here.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 14:59:24

For tax I'd prefer to see a £10k tax haven for each adult and £2k tax haven for each kid (maximum of 2, except in cases of twins (etc) and adopted children).

So your 2+2 family would get £24,000 minimum. Then a flat rate tax for all. Say 50p in the pound.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 15:01:38

'morethanpotatoprints Sat 04-May-13 14:54:28

Haven't the UKIP said that they would only want illegal immigrants to leave? Unless I have missed something vital this isn't ethnic cleansing, or anything like the scale that many are making out on here.'

People like to get hysterical about this sort of thing. Esp main parties who are suddenly faced with the results of years of ignorance.

sieglinde Sat 04-May-13 15:03:45

Lazarus, I'm a bit scared too, even though I've told myself it's irrational.

I've had leave to remain for more than 30 years, and have been a taxpayer, mostly at higher rate, for all of them. And I feel scared. I'm married to a Brit, have been for 27 years, and have two British children and I'm scared. I'm also from a Commonwealth country, and Caucasian, and yet I'm - well - scared.

Because once you let slip the dogs of unreason, it can end almost anywhere.

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 15:31:31

I don't know why you are scared siglinde, you sound as though you are being rather irrational in this. The things you seem to indicate you are scared of are not in any policy document or manifesto of UKIP's that i have read, so tell me where you get this idea from?

I think their ideas on taxation are interesting, lower tax gives everyone more say in their own lives, which is something i support.

All of the policies and manifesto's that lay everything out very clearly are on their website and easy to find.

Xenia Sat 04-May-13 15:37:41

We must get the swan thing right. Everyone living here should learn that only the Queen is allowed to kill swans.

www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/3038-ukip-immigration-policy

No one need worry about UKIP as they will not win power in a general election but certainly some of the concerns of those voting for them should be considered by the other parties.

We are one of the best countries on the whole planet for acceptance of people from abroad. We have been a haven for people for hundreds of years including Jews fleeing Europe in the 1500s I think it was. London is one of the most mixed tolerant cities on the planet.

The policies in the UKIP document referenced above do not look particularly radical to me - Australia has a points system. I am not a UKIP supporter but I really don't think people need to worry.

OTheHugeManatee Sat 04-May-13 15:44:37

I find it odd that this thread has been so focused on debating immigration in the abstract, when the core issue that has been ignored by mainstream politics and which UKIP has seized upon as its core platform, is the EU democratic deficit plus the resulting open border policy and upsurge in economic migration from accession states.

The second issue prompting their rise in popularity is the domination of mainstream politics by wealthy career politicians, largely privately educated, living in a metropolitan bubble with largely homogeneous views and only the vaguest flavour of 'right' or 'left'. Lots of non-metropolitan people are a bit fed up with it. This has been compounded by the rise of spin in the press, which has produced a stifling, hypocritical discursive hegemony in which any deviation from a set of sanctioned views instantly puts the deviant beyond the pale, thus shutting down all but the narrowest of debates.

I would rather stab myself in the eye with something rusty than vote UKIP; I think many of their policies are not very well thought through and I'm not convinced of their fitness for office. But I think they are very good for British politics as a whole. I'm delighted to see issues being debated that have been subject to a conspiracy of silence for years, such as integration versus multiculturalism. And I think we have them largely to thank for the fact that politics is becoming passionate and interesting again, after many many years of bland centrist flannel.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 15:50:40

Let's not go mad.

The 13th Century saw us act rather naughtily towards Jews too.

Didn't we leave one lot on Dogger Bank? (knee high at low tide, quite high at high tide, with strong currents).

Over the years they have often been persecuted for one significant difference... Money.

The same sort of rules that apply to Muslims now, used to apply to Christians, hence Jews were the money lenders - a term distinct from Banker, and slightly pejorative.

IIRC the 13th Century pogroms were due to the King at the time owing a little too much money.

Xenia Sat 04-May-13 15:58:06

I agree that happened. The Romans were also not that nice to my Anglo Saxon ancestors and the Vikings are probably responsible for a lot of us with blonde hair or our children and they invaded here and raped and pillaged. However despite all that for hundreds of years it is true that the English have welcomed many foreigners, much much more so than many other nations and I think most of us are very pleased we are that kind of tolerant country, quiet, self deprecating, calm and we say sorry when people tread on our toes and form orderly queues. People like that here - they come here in part because of our rule of law. Russians know their families and wealth will be safe here.

In the UKIP list I linked to above which I only just found today I don't see anything much there which is too objectionable.Australian type points system etc.

Don't forget that both of Farage's wives are foreigners.

sieglinde Sat 04-May-13 16:31:14

Why am I worried? This is from UKIP's own site:

Any future immigration for permanent settlement must be on a strictly limited and controlled basis where that can clearly be shown to benefit the British people as a whole and our economy.

So an old person like myself - I'm 52 - in only modest health who has basically done most of the benefitting to the UK already in my 30-year working life could well fail.

pickledginger Sat 04-May-13 16:46:57

Go look at the falling voting figures for the BNP this year. Where have those votes gone to?

chibi Sat 04-May-13 16:47:14

jesus. no one eats swans. i don't need anyone to explain to me why swan eating is not done.

i imagine the list of countries where it is usual to hunt,kill and eat animals in an urban setting is a rather short one.

i mentioned it because it is an example of a stupid and (i thought obvious) myth about immigrants. apparently one that otherwise rational people have no trouble believing.

pickledginger Sat 04-May-13 16:49:18

It's more 'us' and 'them'.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 17:23:31

chibi.

How is it a 'myth'? To the best of my knowledge it happened. It isn't a myth. Admittedly there were some rather outlandish claims (ie swans are a delicacy in this or that country).

I can't remember the people involved (Eastern European) but although the Swan killing occurred in an urban area, it doesn't say the people were from an urban area. Some of the big wooded areas in Poland (for example) are well hunted... you should see them in Sept/Oct pckng the mushrooms! Or hunting deer.

It's only like shooting duck or grouse. Apart from the sensibilities of the native people.

sieglinde, it does say 'future'. Aren't you already here?

chibi Sat 04-May-13 17:43:32

in my home country people hunt deer.

they do not hunt deer in the middle of a city even in a park ffs

i would love to know which eastern european nation it is where it is customary to slaughter and eat wild animals in the heart of a city

ttosca Sat 04-May-13 17:47:55

* Voting UKIP Is Not a Protest, It’s an Own Goal *

Increased support for UKIP in recent local elections has been interpreted as a protest against the out of touch, carbon copy mainstream parties. For any voter seeking to protest our broken political system, voting UKIP is a huge own goal. UKIP allow the mainstream parties to keep the conversation on immigrants and the EU, and off the major issues of our time.

cont'd

https://scriptonitedaily.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/voting-ukip-is-not-a-protest-its-an-own-goal/

lemonmuffin Sat 04-May-13 17:49:33

Sieglinde: if you're already here, it won't affect you.
That quote is referring to future immigration.

Bowlersarm Sat 04-May-13 17:50:20

Sieg-but that's future immigrants. Of which you are not.

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 17:53:10

sieglinde

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It quite clearly states FUTURE immigration. This will not affect anyone currently in the UK legally now. Yourself included i assume.

So no reason to fear anything. As someone who works for a living you have far more to fear from your freedoms and the UK's competitiveness being eroded by misguided wasteful policies of the Labour party.

Im a UKIP voter and i want people like you and more recent immigrants in our country to feel valued and be able to contribute. I do think however slowing down the rate of population growth is a good idea.
And removing ourselves from the behemoth of undemocratic dictac from Brussels to be an even better one.

Tez1988 Sat 04-May-13 18:04:00

I agree with meddies mum 100%. They are my reasons also, need I say more and I am in my very early sixties. All 3 major party's are liars and cheats and corrupt.
From a [ ONCE WAS ] traditional Labour supporter.

Xenia Sat 04-May-13 18:08:22

I don't find the quote above very controversial. It is the Australian points system operated in many many states. Just about everyone in the UK accepts that we cannot let everyone enter and that has always been the case. At the moment we have to let those from the other 26 EU states in just as they have to let us into their states.

I do not agree with the tightening of restrictions which stop the Chinese spending money here on holiday and which make it hard for visiting lecturers to come and new hires for leading businesses to enter. That is working badly and against Britain's interest. I do agree with current restrictions on fake students as there is an industry out there for people who have set up bogus universities and students do not attend courses and use it as a means of entry. Clearly we need to police that better as I hope we are now doing.

RubyGates Sat 04-May-13 18:09:15

So, in a electoral area where my vote has as much impact as a piss in the ocean (unless I vote for the only party ever to have been elected in the area) , and given my issues with voting for any of the main parties as outlined above. And given my desire to be heard on the one issue none of the parties will discuss (An in/out Europe ballot); who do you suggest I cast my vote for?

Dawndonna Sat 04-May-13 18:25:12

Jaywall I think it's great that you want people to feel valued, so why not people with disabilities?

amothersplaceisinthewrong Sat 04-May-13 18:30:09

While I doubt very much that UKIP will replicated its success in a general election, they have picked up on some concerns.

I heard on the radio today that the government has not actively "policed" the national minium wage for two years. Pound to a penny there are foreigners doing the jobs for less than the minimum wage and therefore driving down wages and living standards we have fought hard for.

lljkk Sat 04-May-13 18:42:42

Much as it pains me (enormously) I have to agree with Xenia (ouch, ouch) about UKIP's proposals on immigration aren't ridiculous. Will lead to individual family problems, but no system is perfect.

It's UKIP policies on Environment-related & public sector spending that appal me.

StrawberryDaiquiriPlease Sat 04-May-13 19:03:50

I noticed a point made earlier in the conversation but I don't know for sure what it was referencing?
What is UKIP doing to make it harder for women in the workplace?
Is it to do with maternity leave?
Random question, is there a UK party out there which wants to offer parental leave, rather than maternity leave?

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 19:12:42

Dawndonna,

My personal views are that they should feel valued. Can you share a link to whatever it is you are talking about?

2old2beamum Sat 04-May-13 19:21:48

I am almost too scared to post this.
My step sister and her 2 daughters have been elected as UKIP councillors in Boston.
Please don't chuck me off MN I am a Socialist honest.
OH the shame.

Bowlersarm Sat 04-May-13 19:37:52

Ooh were they the ones on the news? One of the girls is called felicity?

gabsid Sat 04-May-13 19:39:44

Yes, both of Farage's wifes are foreigners, and Hitler was Austrian, came to Germany because he didn't like the multi-cultural makeup of society there and then decided that only people of German blood could be members of the nation - that would have excluded him for a start.

lljkk Sat 04-May-13 19:55:18

totally outing yourself there, 2bean!
I was looking at Lincs results & noticed the Boston concentration.
I'm sure there are some sane people in UKIP. Law of averages, and all.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 19:57:50

'Parental leave' rather than 'maternity leave' would be a good thing. Why should women have to take the time off?

This is one of those things that are seen as 'unfair' by some people. The mother takes 12 months off (is that the max?) 9mths paid, 3 not. She is now 12 months out of date on return to work, and perhaps her pay and chances of promotion suffer. She isn't necessarily biased against, just not competitive.

A mum/dad combo of 4 - 6 months each on the other hand shouldn't affect their competitiveness nor their companies, bearing in mind they have to get a temp in sometimes.

Strawberry, you wont get an answer on that, it was I who challenged it. It was what I like to term as 'trigger post'. The poster was hoping to trigger outrage at a party manifesto legislating for women out of the workplace... which UKIPs manifesto doesn't do.

I don't even support UKIP, but I can read!

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 20:02:20

'jaywall Sat 04-May-13 19:12:42

Dawndonna,

My personal views are that they should feel valued. Can you share a link to whatever it is you are talking about?'

The link is in her post mate. You didn't mention, specifically, that disabled people should feel valued.

Try to get a comprehensive list in next time, I know it may make the post a bit big but hey ho.

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 20:15:28

There is no link in the post i replied to, would you care to post one LazarussLozenge ?

I don't see what you are getting at at, what comprehensive list?

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 20:20:54

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 20:28:17

'2old2beamum Sat 04-May-13 19:21:48

Please don't chuck me off MN I am a Socialist honest.
OH the shame.'

I feel your shame, but I doubt the MNHQ will kick you off for being a socialist...

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sat 04-May-13 20:28:49

My step sister and her 2 daughters have been elected as UKIP councillors in Boston

Why do you think that happened, then. grin

PS. Yay, another MNer in Boston.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 20:34:04

jaywall

Their national manifesto clearly states they want to treat any EU immigrants who arrived after 1st April 2004 the same as citizens from other countries, unless they have permanent leave to remain.

They also say that immigrants (including those with permanent leave) should not be entitled to benefits.

So in my case, (having arrived in 2005 and contributed since) I've got every reason to find their policies concerning.

It's on page 5 of their manifesto, I won't link, but you can easily find it on their website

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 21:01:00

From the manifesto.

'7. EU citizens who have been established in the UK for seven years or more will, depending on their circumstances, be able to apply for permanent leave to remain (provided they fulfil certain criteria and are eligible to apply for work permits).'

You've been here over 7 years, would imagine as you have contributed since you have every reason not to be that concerned... yes, I appreciate the uncertainty.

All you seem to be affected by is a further five year freeze on citizenship.

Promise to abide by our rules (Can't fault that I am afraid), be on permanent leave to stay for five years, and you can apply for citizenship.

Why haven't you applied for PLTS if you want to be here that much?

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 21:13:35

Lazarus - the manifesto says clearly that people with permanent leave to remain should have no rights to benefits either.

As for why I haven't applied for Leave to Remain - I'm a EU citizen, so there is no need to apply for it. Farage and his lot want to remove that, but until that happens, why should I clog the UKBA's work backlog with my application.

Only if I wanted to support the application for a residence card of a non-EEA family member, I would need it, otherwise

I would have long applied for citizenship, but I currently don't have a spare £1k kicking about.

2old2beamum Sat 04-May-13 21:23:06

To all who understand my shame What happened you may well ask her mother who my DF married (the bitch) so no genetic link( phew) My DF was a communist in 1950's but then became a socialist. DSM was out for everything she could get who was labour until DD got up the arse about immigration. Can't see her or DD's working in the fields.

Just another point (relevant) she stood in my kitchen and said she would abort if she had conceived a baby with Downs in front of my 3 Downs children I have not seen her since.[anger]
Yes her DD is Felicity

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 21:30:54

WidowWadman, if we are going to discuss this then lets not be disingenuous. The paragraph you mention is from the 2010 manifesto which has been superseded by the 2013 manifesto. It also is not quite as you insinuate;

Ensure all EU citizens who came to Britain
after 1 January 2004 are treated in the same
way as citizens from other countries (unless
entitled to ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’). Non-
UK citizens travelling to or from the UK will
have their entry and exit recorded. To enforce
this, the number of UK Borders Agency staff
engaged in controlling immigration will be
tripled to 30,000

Bear in mind this was in 2010 and is now effectively a 7 year trailing date. I don't think that is unreasonable,

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 21:37:17

2old2beamum

What has the Downs comment got to do with UKIP? It just means the commenter is not a nice person.

There is no policy on aborting such babies, but I believe a UKIP councilor has said he believes Downs, Spina Bifida and one other I can't remember should be aborted. I read it in a article I've read.

But that is that. A personal opinion. Unles UKIP put that in their manifesto, it isn't UKIP opinion.

And people abort babies just because the baby is 'inconvenient' at the moment.

We were offered a test to find out if we had a Downs baby (at least poss more), I believe it was offered so we could either prepare or abort. In Germany BTW.

My wife and I decided against the test.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 21:37:50

The 2010 manifesto is the last national elections one. Their local manifesto doesn't have much detail about what they want to do to EU citizens.
Also, if it was superseded, why would it still be published on their website as their national manifesto.

You cut your quote too early, too. It goes on to say:

" Require those living in the UK under
‘Permanent Leave to Remain’ to abide by a
legally binding ‘Undertaking of Residence’
ensuring they respect our laws or face
deportation. Such citizens will not be eligible for
benefits."

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 21:40:32

Widow is correct though.

During PLtR benefits wouldn't be available. Only a citizen would receive them (by birth or process).

I don't think that is fair TBH. If a person is contributing, NI/tax contributions, then why should they be denied support/med care (free) if they need it?

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 22:13:38

WidowWadman,

Yes it does go on to say that further down the page. And it seems very reasonable to me.
If someone wants to come and live here, they should respect our laws. Do you disagree ?

I also think it reasonable that they have the means or opportunity to provide for themselves. Again, this is not unreasonable.

The more we talk the more convinced i am that UKIP have sound, reasonable policies in place, and they also have the 1 policy that makes me want to vote for them, a big No to European socialism.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 22:18:50

jaywall Where have I said that people shouldn't abide laws? Who is disingenious now?

As for means and opportunities to provide for themselves - why do you think it's fair someone should pay the same taxes and NI contributions as a citizen, but not get the same entitlements in return?

Dawndonna Sat 04-May-13 22:33:29

Jaywall, I was referring to the fact that the UKIP manifesto states that it wants to 're-examine' community care and support congregate communities for the disabled.
In other words, out of sight, out of mind.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 22:43:34

'Re-examine community care and support congregate communities for people with learning disabilities'

Where does it say 'out of sight, out of mind'?

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 22:47:41

Oh, that is a direct lift from the UKIP national manifesto for 2013 by the way.

Dawndonna Sat 04-May-13 22:50:07

If you took a little time off from being right and expended a little of that energy on learning some sort of moral philosophy, you may be able to work it out.

pickledginger Sat 04-May-13 23:03:53

Précis of UKIP manifesto:

Basically, you know the 1950s? That.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 23:06:39

You've taken ONE sentence, and extrapolated from it.

If you read the in depth medical policy, you'll notice the word you highlighted 'reexamine' seems to indicate just that. Reexamine community care and support congregate communities.

They are actually expecting people who know about community care and its alternatives to aid them. They are a small party so the expense of formulating such policies is probably high enough to mean their policies are a bit fuzzy at this time.

The supporting of congregate communities, I assume (unless evidence to contrary appears) they would like to support them. There are a fair few already in existence, usually run on a charity basis.

It doesn't seem to include squirreling them away, so no one can see them. Certainly the one I have first hand experience of was hidden away, but had community/supported homes in a local town, and there was plenty of visits and socialisation. The school they were in just happened to be in the countryside - lovely location though. I think the building and grounds was gifted to the charity by the owner... I supose they could have said 'no, we want a more city centre location'.

or http://www.camphill.org.uk/about I refuse to believe all 24 of these locations are in the sticks.

I don't set out to be right all the time... I just read the facts, rather than unleashing my righteous indignation at a perceived slight.

Until tonight I hadn't read the UKIP policy, but now I have...

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 23:08:26

pickled,

There is a strong sense of 'going back to what worked'.

pickledginger Sat 04-May-13 23:16:02

Open, unapologetic racism, limited life options if you didn't have a penis, no protection from domestic violence and marital rape, unequal pay for women. Hunky dory.

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 23:16:06

WidowWadman
You are being disingenuous again, i asked a question of you which you answered as though i made an accusation.

Firstly, fair is neither here nor there. Lots of things in life are not fair and never will be. I think we should aim for being reasonable, all things considered.

And yes, I think it is reasonable that someone should work for an amount of time before being able to claim benefits.

pickledginger Sat 04-May-13 23:17:36

I forgot, the institutionalisation of those with disabilities and mental illness and the sense of fading Imperialism.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 23:20:56

jaywall - there's nothing in their manifesto about being able to claim benefits after working for an amount of time. It's citizenship or nothing, no matter how long you've paid into the system.

And they want to remove the right to benefits from those who've paid in for 7 (seven) years without being citizens of the UK, but citizens of EEA states with which the UK has reciprocal agreements.

LazarussLozenge Sat 04-May-13 23:22:02

Well done pickled, you've portrayed your opinion of what was wrong with the '50s as if it were the UKIP manifesto...

Does any of that appear in the manifesto? Is there a 'back to kitchen, woman' clause? Or a reversal of the marital rape laws?

No, there isn't is there.

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 23:23:14

Pickledginger

Its ridiculous strawman arguments such as this that reduce debate. If you want this thread all to yourself then fine, carry on.
The debate will carry on elsewhere.

Dawndonna Sat 04-May-13 23:27:44

Point proven.

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 23:28:11

WidowWadman

Citizenship could be gained after time and meeting certain criteria. And yes, they would be breaking with many EU agreements.

I am in principle in agreement with this.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 23:34:35

I refer you back to the hefty fee which comes attached to citizenship, which makes it not that easy to obtain it, even if you tick all of the other boxes.

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 23:35:43

Dawndonna,

They wish to revisit it. Nothing is set in stone.

next ?

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 23:36:46

Also, thinking about it - if I gave up my EU memberstate citizenship in favour of UK citizenship if UKIPs policies came into force - I'd lose the freedom of movement I currently have, which allows me to work in any EU member state.

That's not overly appealing, to be honest.

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 23:38:30

WidowWadman

If after working here for 7 years you cannot afford £1000 for citizenship then maybe you should accept it is not for you?

I agree with this policy, you obviously feel it is harsh as it affects you directly but maybe you could have set aside £2.75 a week for those 7 years to be able to cover this.

WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 23:43:08

So you're basically saying that entitlement should have nothing to do with how much you've contributed over a length of time, but ability or willingness to pay an extra random fee on top of it.

Dawndonna Sat 04-May-13 23:45:04

What I find absolutely fascinating about this is the fact that people, because they are on the internet, express beliefs in such an enormously rude, belligerent and bullying fashion. Things they would neither dare nor consider doing if they were face to face.
Next?

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 23:48:22

Dandonna,
I would happily meet you and/or others to talk about this, i think you might be disappointed though as i am no expert just a normal person who has decided to vote ukip and read a little bit about it.

I also think you are mistaking rudeness for honesty and a little bit of exasperation at comments such as pickledginger's. Have a look at those for belligerent bullying!

jaywall Sat 04-May-13 23:48:57

WidowWadman

In your instance, no. If it were set out before you came here then yes.

Wuldric Sat 04-May-13 23:52:59

They are a small party so the expense of formulating such policies is probably high enough to mean their policies are a bit fuzzy at this time.

Then they are not a fit party to govern. By all means sling them a few protest votes, in local elections. No-one much minds about public loos in any event. But really, there is no point in voting for them in a proper election.

jaywall Sun 05-May-13 00:02:57

Wuldric,

Nice ! Local government makes a multitude of decisions that would affect you and yours in your daily lives. They are proper elections. And the people that voted for them are real too, with their own opinions and thoughts.

Wuldric Sun 05-May-13 00:11:30

No, I don't think that local governments do make many decisions that affect me and mine. They honestly don't. I did not make that comment to belittle local government by the way. It was just to illustrate that you cannot vote for a party that has no policies in a general election. You do not know what you are voting for. They are a muddled bunch of dislikes. All I know about them is that they don't like Europe. They cannot be said to have a coherent economic policy. They exist only for people to make a protest vote. Which is fine in elections that do not matter. Less fine in a general election - who wants to take a Lucky Dip in a general election? Will this party bankrupt the state or not? Who knows?

jaywall Sun 05-May-13 00:24:35

Wuldric,

Local government make many decisions that affect whether you realise that or not.

As for UKIP's policies, they have many and they can all be seen quite clearly on their website. In fact they have more clearly laid out policy information on their website than the Labour Party.

You don't like them which is fine, vote for someone else. Thats the benefit of democracy. But you should consider whether just calling them names and belittling them without knowing anything about what you are talking about is the best way to get your opinions across.

If you really want a lucky dip, vote Labour or LibDem or Conservative, they have all shouted about policies before the election that disappeared into oblivion once they won power. So having the minutiae of every policy available years before the election might be the be all and end all of nothing much at all.

ReturnOfEmeraldGreen Sun 05-May-13 01:25:53

I have a great aunt aged 85 who is a UKIP member. Immigration, law and order and, er, 'non-native species' of insects in her garden and the legitimacy of killing them seem to be key factors. She is very bright and switched on, plus she is as mad as a box of frogs.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 07:48:42

Wuldric,

You're a little off the mark there. You'll find a number of parties have fuzzy edges to their policies.

If you read the UKIP medical/care policy you'll find a set of binding principles. It doesn't mean they are unfit to govern.

Name a party at the moment you feel IS fit to govern?

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 08:10:01

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 08:34:19

'WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 23:36:46

Also, thinking about it - if I gave up my EU memberstate citizenship in favour of UK citizenship if UKIPs policies came into force - I'd lose the freedom of movement I currently have, which allows me to work in any EU member state.'

So you are here in UK because...

I've had a fair bit of sympathy so far with your plight, but this comment seems to mean you are just here because it suits you to date. You'll pop off somewhere else if you feel like it.

Britain isn't a hotel. Is it lack of £1,000 that has stopped you becoming a citizen, or that you wish to have your cake and eat it?

If you stay in a hotel, you don't get tenants rights do you?

ironman Sun 05-May-13 09:09:18

jaywall People are bullied all the time here on MN. Look at some of the posts in the past( in politics, and other topics, even on breastfeeding! according to Amanda Holden, haven't read it though)t. If you say you vote UKIP you will get a barrage of name calling abuse, all of course most would not dare to say to you on the street......Well they would not say it to me! grin

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 09:22:39

I would feel very uncomfortable and simply would not be prepared to give up EU memberrstate citizenship in favour of UK citizenship. As a EU citizen I have never been bothered to get UK citizenship and would certainly not pay £1000 for it.

I have been here for 20 years worked and as an MFL teacher certainly haven't taken anyone's job here. DH is British, DC are not but I wanted it that way. We are happy as we are, a multi-cultural and bi-lingual family. I don't plan to leave. I/we have never relied on the state and paid our taxes.

I find all this UKIP nonsese rather irritating and more so that 1/4 of the people in my area voted for them.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 09:35:38

Why would you feel uncomfortable to give up your EU citizenship?

Why are you unprepared to become a UK citizen?

Doesn't matter either way to me, but I am intrigued.

WidowWadman Sun 05-May-13 09:48:49

Lazarus- I regard Britain as my home, and want to stay, but giving up the right to live and work anywhere in a number of countries, including my home country is a big step, isn't it?

At the moment you and I both have the right to work anywhere in the EU. I don't think that the UK would do themselves any favours economically by leaving the EU, so going for the citizenship of the country, and by doing so removing the escape route to go somewhere else when the bonkers idea leads to even more economic disaster doesn't sound very clever to me.

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 10:05:21

Widow - I agree, I couldn't possibly give up the right to live in my home country, although I am very happy here, and, after 20 years, I would feel very out of place if I went back.

I didn't come here because life was better here or I hoped to get anything from the state. I simply came to improve my English and have an 'adventure' by living in London, going to clubs and meeting all sorts of new people. That's all and I am still here, not in London but nevertheless.

I travelled further afield too and worked in different countried which was an incredibly enriching experience and lots of fun. It would be wrong to stop that freedom of movement on so many levels.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 10:10:25

Personally I think the EU has been the biggest clusterf*ck ever.

When it was much less intrusive it was fine, but now we have a much larger government making decisions for us. How much control does the citizen have?

The Euro was poorly executed to say the least.

How on earth some of the tinpot states managed to hitch on to the Euro wagon defies beleif.

WidowWadman Sun 05-May-13 10:29:51

You do realise that even if the UK were to leave the EU, anything a UK manufacturer would want to export to EU countries still would have to comply with EU regs, so by leaving you wouldn't stop the obligation of compliance, but only the UK having any say in drafting the regs? So you'd lose control rather than gain it.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 10:32:42

They'd be unable to interfere with our legal or financial process.

We built stuff to foreign spec all the time.

well said impala.agree,agree,agree

wreckitralph Sun 05-May-13 11:02:52

I am a British passport holder living in a country outside of the EU. I have lived here for 16 years and I have no rights. I am not entitled to benefits, my children have to wait for spaces in a school after the locals get them, I am not eligible for medical, I have to have insurance. If we lose our jobs I get 90 days to find another one or we have to leave.

Every day of the week there are articles in the newspaper about immigration and about expat taking locals jobs. There are quite a few heated debates on the TV and radio about it too. There was even a protest rally about immigration with thousands of people.

Am I bothered - no! Do I want to leave - no!

The reason is that I recognise that despite paying GBP80K a year in taxes, I am a guest in this country. Anything they let me have is a privilege, not a right. I am entitled to nothing and that's the way it should be. It's still great to be here despite their tight leash on immigrants, we do really well out of it.

I find it quite distressing to see how super powers such as Germany and Russia are slowly,subtly and in a more underhand,sly fashion are quietly achieving what hitler failed to do 70 years ago.
also sick of being accused of being racist for wanting to slow down immigration.
I see our once beautiful countryside being transformed into building sites and mini towns to try to cope with increasing numbers.
can someone please tell me why that makes me a rascist?

FairyMum Sun 05-May-13 11:06:24

I am going to be honest and blunt and say that I simply don't understand how so many people in this country can go out and vote for UKIP. Their policies were outlined earlier in this thread and I honestly thought that would be it and end of thread as surely these are policies noone can actually support? What this country needs is obviously more immigration to water out a bit of the native population.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 11:19:05

Hmmm.

The Mumsnet Police have deleted a previous post.

I'll try again.

Dawndonna. You don't seem to support the policy of UKIP to support congregated communities for those with learning disabilities.

The link in my post re camphill shows 25 such communities exst under that umbrella, I know of a further community. There appears to be more.

More importantly the practice seems to be supported by the Royal Mencap Society, who fund places at these locations.

So basically a current system based on charity and family payments is likely to be supported from central government.

You feel this is 'out of sight out of mind'.

Why?

The reexamination of community care seems to be in concert with organisations who know about that sort of thing. Which could mean an increase in such care or, admittedly, a decrease. But it means just that... re-examination, with support of experts in that field and no doubt treasury types. Because lets face it, if we can't afford the gold service you wont get it.

You haven't proven any point so far, as you haven't really made one.

What do feel is wrong with congregated communities? What do you know that RMS (and other specialists) have missed?

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 11:25:06

Oh, forgot a bit.
My experience of a congregated community was a concentration of various people (I can't say kids as some of them were physcally nearly 30) in a rural set home.

But of the 100 students, many lived in accommodation down town. They were often seen cutting about with a carer going about their daily business.

But they were 'out of sight' at the main building. The main building was set in a rural location (gifted i believe not bought by the establishment) and allowed them a fair bit of freedom to run, play, shoot arrows all sorts.

I was involved in helping them 'camp' out. We set up tents, had marshmellows and co co and lovely stew meal. Some were taken back to the their rooms, some slept in the tents... all of 20 meters from the actual building!

I thought it a fantastic set up. But places and time in this setting were limited by funds, most from donations.

tiggytape Sun 05-May-13 11:33:11

I simply don't understand how so many people in this country can go out and vote for UKIP

That's rather the point of a democracy though isn't it. Everyone can vote for a party that enrages or completely baffles another voter.

Until it all got a bit derailed by people saying UKIP voters are idiots and racists point proved - your question was what everyone was trying to discuss.

Why is it that 1/4 people in many areas took the time to go out on Thursday and place a X in a box for UKIP? What issues or concerns did they have in mind? How is UKIP able to appeal so widely that it has become the second most popular party in both traditional Tory and Labour areas? Those are interesting questions and worth looking at.

Of course the easy answer to all fo those questions is that Britain is populated by 25% idiotic racists and that's the end of it.
Or that UKIP voters are thick and don't know any policy details. That last point is probably true - but most people voting for any party wouldn't be able to tell you more than 1 or 2 policies at best (and even then they'd probably be wrong).

I left the thread somewhere around the swan-eating, racist ranting part but until then it was quite interesting to speculate about this sudden increase in support and what might lie behind it before the thread descended into name calling and mud slinging.

Instead I've been reading up on UKIP's chances in next years European elections (very high apparantly - the voting system is PR which suits small parties very well). The Guardian is predicting they will "reign supreme" next year.

Dawndonna Sun 05-May-13 11:39:36

Lazaruss
1) Of course you were deleted. You were rude, again.
2) You have made your disdain for people with disabilities very clear on other threads, in fact iirc, 'Kylite' was the word you chose to use.
3) I have no wish to engage with somebody who chooses not to believe evidence if it goes against their own world view. As I have said before, The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in comon. They don't alter their views to fit with the facts, their alter the facts to fit with their views.
End of discussion.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 11:43:09

PR/AV should be allowed in this country.

Case in point? This very scenario.

Let's assume a quite area is about to have a high speed raillink ploughed through it.

Current system. You have the big 3, greens, UKIP and a local independent dead set against th elink, as are most people in the area.

Will he win?

Course not. Herd mentality tells the voters to vote for who WILL get in, and hope they take note of their pleas. Some will vote knowing they are throwing away their vote on a 'unelectable protest' candidate.

PR/AV.

Wait. You can now vote for Local independant, and if he doesnt get in, your second vote can be for your favoured party...

This still wont get the LI in to power. The bigger parties know that he will get in, so adjust their policy to suit. The electorate get what they want.

And thus more may take part, we have the lowest turn outs ever at the moment.

UKIP is a huge protest vote, it is gaining momentum as people will realise to vote for UKIP is no longer a thrown away vote. UKIP MPs will be a reality soon.

You don't need a polished manifesto and a snakeoil salesman at the door.

You need a candidate that you beleive will do the right thing on a bad day, in line with your own views.

Can UKIP provide that? I don't know. If they can, I may vote for them.

infamouspoo Sun 05-May-13 11:44:37

Could it be that Dawndonna is an actual parent of disabled children and these large charities are generally run by non disabled people as businesses and not run by disabled people themselves? Just a guess. As a disabled person I wouldnt' touch half of them with a long pole. Too busy patting themselves on the head for their good deeds.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 11:51:55

'Dawndonna Sun 05-May-13 11:39:36

Lazaruss
1) Of course you were deleted. You were rude, again.
2) You have made your disdain for people with disabilities very clear on other threads, in fact iirc, 'Kylite' was the word you chose to use.
3) I have no wish to engage with somebody who chooses not to believe evidence if it goes against their own world view. As I have said before, The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in comon. They don't alter their views to fit with the facts, their alter the facts to fit with their views.
End of discussion.'

point 1. Yeah, probably. I did go beyond blunt and in to rude. Especially when I questioned your intellgence.

point 2. No I haven't, you just think I have. You misconstrued my point. As I said at the time, my comment was against those who excuse bad behaviour as a condition, that is not statemented.

I react similarly to people who claim their inability to spell, use grammar or what not is 'dyslexia' despite making no effort to find out or they are not statemented. My wife is dyslexic by the way (and statemented).

Kylite fits the naugty kids masquarading under teh umbrella of condition quite nicely.

point 3... you're just as guilty of discarding non-conforming evidence as anyone else.

If you have a credible arguement to my above points about congregational communities please put them forward. I am sure others on here would be interested, even if you don't talk to myself.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 11:54:15

'infamouspoo Sun 05-May-13 11:44:37

Could it be that Dawndonna is an actual parent of disabled children and these large charities are generally run by non disabled people as businesses and not run by disabled people themselves? Just a guess. As a disabled person I wouldnt' touch half of them with a long pole. Too busy patting themselves on the head for their good deeds.'

Could be. Who knows.

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 12:09:42

urtwisting - ... what Hitler failed to do 70 years ago ...

Well, he had a good try, didn't he. Similarly, a lot of people didn't believe in the governement at the time, so they voted for a small outsider to hopefully sort things out, e.g. high unemployment, inflation etc. The Nazi party never actually won an election and were banned at one point, but right wing parties always seem popular when other things fail. Then they picked on Jews as the sole problem - just propaganda, a bit like Daily Mail style, as there were actually just 500,000 jews in Germany at the time, 1% of the population.

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 12:12:47

Besides, Angela Merkel doesn't want to take over or invade anyone, she wants to tell everyone what to do.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 12:18:21

Typical woman then wink

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 12:23:15

gabsid,

The Nazis won elections. Like the situation in UK now, they didn't win the election outright (in this case the federal (general) election) but formed a coalliton.. then malleted their bedfellows.

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 12:35:34

Well, they got 36% and 33%, it wasn't a win.

duchesse Sun 05-May-13 13:14:20

This is what I think best represents UKIP : Little Britain and the League of Gentlemen. I think they are an embarrassment to our nation. They are small-minded, reactionary people whose values we ought as a mature democracy to be leaving behind. They promise an easy fix to complex economic issues.

We would all do well to learn lessons from history: Hitler was not voted into power by promising to kill 4 million people and invade the rest of Europe. No, he promised an easy fix to complex economic problems.

Becoming inward-looking and nationalistic is not the solution to what is a global problem. However much this government rants about "appalling economic legacies left by the last government", I bet they are incredibly glad not to have been the ones in power when it all went tits up.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 13:27:11

duchesse, why do you think tony hospital passed to gordon?

Nobody wanted to be leader when that mess unfolded, despite it being obvious for some time it was going to go off.

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 05-May-13 13:49:09

To those citing Nazi Germany.

Surely your posts are the reason why those voting for UKIP should be listened to.

By calling them racist and ignoring them it just makes the problem worse.

ttosca Sun 05-May-13 13:49:17

Again, please read this if you think voting UKIP is a good choice of protest vote (an overview of UKIP policies):

Voting UKIP Is Not a Protest, It’s an Own Goal

https://scriptonitedaily.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/voting-ukip-is-not-a-protest-its-an-own-goal/

RubyGates Sun 05-May-13 13:59:10

Ttosca, posting the same link twice in a thread does seem rather desperate.

So given the circumstance I outlined earlier, who do you suggest I vote for? Or do you think I should exercise my democratic right to just stay home and shut up?

RubyGates Sun 05-May-13 14:08:58

And could you please tell me more about the individual/organisation behind the blog? The "about" section is not exactly informative.

ttosca Sun 05-May-13 14:10:03

Ruby-

If you, like myself, don't want to vote for any of the three main neo-liberal parties, you could do better than voting UKIP.

Voting UKIP is like shooting yourself in the foot. I understand that a lot of people wanted to register a protest vote. I have at least as much contempt for the three main parties as anyone else.

But UKIP really is a foul organisation, and should they actually wield any power, would make the UK a nastier, provincial, reactionary place to live.

I would either vote Green, if you could, or spoil your ballot, or don't vote at all, and join protests instead.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 14:16:19

ttosca...

I think you need to do better than that. Niel from the Young Ones could articulate a better explaination than that... while Vivian nailed his head to the floor.

Why are they foul?
how would they make UK nastier?
how would they make UK provincial?
how would they make UK reactionary?

You have the talking stick.

Viviennemary Sun 05-May-13 14:17:30

But all this UKIP is a foul organisation. It's all very well banding about these expressions. But how is it a foul organisation. So a quarter of voters voted for a foul organisation. this doesn't help.

RubyGates Sun 05-May-13 14:18:07

I have not intention to vote Green.
And I will not spoil my ballot. I don't think a spoiled ballot is a stron ehough protest.

I do not lead a life where physical protest is possible, and I often disagree fundamentally with the organisations who organise the main protests and who automatically assume, that because you are against something you must be "for" thier own agenda. I will not have my dissent taken for acceptance of an equally unacceptable alternative.

RubyGates Sun 05-May-13 14:23:17

no
and strong enough...

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 15:28:12

duchesse I agree, my DD (4) doesn't know many people from different cultures and recently we played in a park and she refused to join in a game with some black DC. She told me that she didn't want to play because she doesn't like balck DC!! I feel I have to expose her more and talk about stuff to change such thinking. DH best friend is black but unfortunately he lives 5 hours away.

To me UKIP voters seem a bit like that to me - its fear of the unknown.

WidowWadman Sun 05-May-13 15:31:06

wreckitralph so if you would lose your job and not find anything within 90 days does that mean then you'd return to the UK who'd have to provide for you despite you not having contributed for 16 years?

It's really illogical to deduct an entitlement just from the fact you've been born somewhere, rather than from contributing and being part of society.

OhLori Sun 05-May-13 15:42:52

Reasons:

- Mass immigration. London where I was brought up is unrecognisable. Also immigrants getting greater access to social housing (higher "points") and higher state expenditure like education (having lots of children).

-being controlled all the time, huge powers of the state in lots of areas, not just necessary and sensible ones. The thought police, the health police, political correctness, and so on.

-politicians lying and being opportunist (e.g. Labour and immigration, now backtracking madly of course, too late)

-EU deciding our national policies re. above, rather thank UK citizens themselves.

I can't see myself voting UKIP myself, but I really see why people do.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 15:48:32

To be fair WW, I'd be upset if wreckitralph returned unemployed and just tapped in. Or should their medinsurance not cover them, they return and tap in to the NHS.

Social welfare should be based on a pay in, pay out scheme. ie NI payments are just that insurance. Don't keep up the payments, no longer covered.

Where are you wreckit? Bermuda?

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 16:02:01

wreckit - you said you paid 80K in tax per year, you must have an income to match then, e.g. be able to afford medical insurance. And you don't expect anything back for the tax you pay? What about people on a more average income, can they affored to work where you are or are they not wanted - until there are shortages of some sort. In any case, I think if you pay tax like everyone else you should be entitled to services like everyone else.

You say you have been there for 16 years I think. What about the cultural and social side of life. I assume that is your home now, you have family. What about your DC, is it the only home they have known? Are they entitled to anything? What is their identity? It just gets very fuzzy as you look a couple of years down they line.

WidowWadman Sun 05-May-13 16:08:44

I guess there's a difference between people who integrate in the country they chose to live and those who identify as "expats".

delboysfileofax Sun 05-May-13 16:10:19

My one true wish is that when the borders open to Romanian and Bulgarian people next year, that millions come over- I caveat that though that they all come to do middle-class roles. I want teachers, social workers, middle managers and business owners. I want to see how quickly people's opinions change when it's THEIR jobs which are undercut and done for cheaper. When their standard of life is eroded.

infamouspoo Sun 05-May-13 16:20:22

'Social welfare should be based on a pay in, pay out scheme. ie NI payments are just that insurance. Don't keep up the payments, no longer covered.'

And if you cant?

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 16:27:59

You are expecting a lot of people then? Millions from Romania and Bulgaria? Well, a recent poll suggested that not many people would want to come to the UK, not unless they had a job sorted out beforehand, and their first choice of country to go to would be German and Italy anyway.

A very good friend of mine is Bulgarian, who I don't think is undercutting anyone's job, quite the opposite. She had to go through a lot of hussle because her employment contract was flawed and they were trying to pay her a 1/3 less than she should have been paid. By the way, she is a doctor and looking at our local hospital, it is full of foreign doctors - where are the British one's then?

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 16:36:38

Easiest way?

Work for benefits.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 16:38:29

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 16:27:59

A very good friend of mine is Bulgarian, who I don't think is undercutting anyone's job, quite the opposite. She had to go through a lot of hussle because her employment contract was flawed and they were trying to pay her a 1/3 less than she should have been paid. By the way, she is a doctor and looking at our local hospital, it is full of foreign doctors - where are the British one's then?'

In Saudi on double what the NHS pay?

sieglinde Sun 05-May-13 16:46:20

Going back a long way now.. just want to thank everyone who reassured me.

So why don't I feel happy?

Don't waste time on me; go read George Clare's book Last Waltz in Vienna. They thought they were not only at home but really at the centre of things, and it was all gone, all of it, in just a couple of weeks.

chibi Sun 05-May-13 16:51:26

i think about this sieglinde sad

Dawndonna Sun 05-May-13 17:07:07

And if you cant?
Starve presumably. Because there are plenty of carers who are not in a position to work for their benefits. But if you posit that in this place you'll get shot down in flames. Even by people who provided a service for children with a disability. Apparently because they are yours/mine we should just get on with it and support them, be damned grateful for any help we do get and stop acting in such an entitled fashion.
It matters not whether or not you 'put into the pot' before children/partners/parents developed illnesses or disabilities.
Working for benefits is not an option for many, but people can find ways around that. Xenia once suggested plenty that I could do with the six hours broken rest I get in every twentyfour.
hmm

chibi Sun 05-May-13 17:11:27

i tend to think that if there is work to be done it is worthy of being an actaul job, and paid at least the minimum wage

admittedly i am not a native british person so prone to holding deranged cultural values wink

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 17:13:44

Lazarus - no, here at the NHS/Uni

tiggytape Sun 05-May-13 17:22:21

To me UKIP voters seem a bit like that to me - its fear of the unknown.

I don't vote UKIP yet feel this is hugely patronising.
UKIP voters are like small children seeing a black child for the first time and feeling nervous?
Seriously?
Is that really how people of one political persuasion rationalise the opinions of others? That their opinion is so 'wrong' that it can only be understood be infantising it and reducing it to something that doesn't really count?

I totally agree a lot of UKIP votes are protest votes. But to tell people they should vote Green instead and that UKIP is a nasty party doesn't really get to the heart of what it is about UKIP that meets their concerns in a way the Green Party's message clearly doesn't. This slightly condescending approach to what is best for others is actually what many people are riling against when they vote UKIP I suspect

More than a million people walked into a polling station last Thursday and voted UKIP. People are unhappy with the government and unhappy with the alternatives. Something about UKIP's message clicks with them in a way Labour has failed to do despite having a captive audience – us being in the grip of a horrendous economic crisis makes winning support from the government theoretically pretty easy.
So many people truly feel their lives are currently blighted by the policies perused under the last 2 governments and for them voting UKIP is as close as they can get to giving the system a great big kick. They don’t want to vote Green – that’s not radical enough to express their outrage. But they don’t’ want a UKIP government either. They want to scare the hell out of the main parties and make them address the stuff that matters to them – not spend time on the Leveson Report or arguing about gay marriage or hand wringing over things that have no relevance to most people’s lives at a time people are struggling on the bare basics of just surviving month to month

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 17:25:06

'Dawndonna Sun 05-May-13 17:07:07

And if you cant?
Starve presumably. Because there are plenty of carers who are not in a position to work for their benefits. But if you posit that in this place you'll get shot down in flames. Even by people who provided a service for children with a disability. Apparently because they are yours/mine we should just get on with it and support them, be damned grateful for any help we do get and stop acting in such an entitled fashion.
It matters not whether or not you 'put into the pot' before children/partners/parents developed illnesses or disabilities.
Working for benefits is not an option for many, but people can find ways around that. Xenia once suggested plenty that I could do with the six hours broken rest I get in every twentyfour.'

Actually you can work for benefits AND look after a loved one.

It's rather simple.

We class your care as 'work' and pay you accordingly.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sun 05-May-13 17:26:37

They want to scare the hell out of the main parties and make them address the stuff that matters to them – not spend time on the Leveson Report or arguing about gay marriage or hand wringing over things that have no relevance to most people’s lives at a time people are struggling on the bare basics of just surviving month to month

^ This.

duchesse Sun 05-May-13 17:29:04

Tiggy- just because someone is willing to hold a populist rhetoric does not mean they should be voted for quite the opposite in fact. I just hope that those 1 million people who voted UKIP looked beyond the rhetoric to actual policies, and thought through the ramifications of potentially voting in this party.

If a majority of the electorate thought that killing unwanted children should be allowed (to pick an extreme and unlikely (I hope) to be found policy in any of the political parties decent enough to run), would that make it a good policy? Would it make it a policy worthy of consideration and debate?

chibi Sun 05-May-13 17:30:23

isn't carer's allowance only £58.45 a week?

chibi Sun 05-May-13 17:32:40

i can't think of the adjective i want here, maybe someone can help me out but

We class your care as 'work' and pay you accordingly

in the context of £58.45/week

yowza.

accordingly, indeed hmm

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 17:32:51

tiggytape - yes, but a lot of UKIP's manifesto just sounds too good to be true. They are promising simple solutions to complex economic issues. The numbers aren't adding up.

Dawndonna Sun 05-May-13 17:39:15

It works out at £1.49 per hour based on a 39 hour week.
NMW anyone?
Oh, and I would love to only do a 39 hour week. Doesn't work like that.
I used to be a lecturer. Piece of cake by comparison.

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 17:39:59

And, the UK is not going to be overrun by Romanians and Bulgarians. We are paying into the EU, but we also get lots back. I kept seeing the UKIP posters around here: Enough is enough! Stop Immigration or something.

There is a slogan Hitler used in the late 1920s or ealy 30s: Enough now! Vote Hitler! Refering to being exploited and taken over by jews. Only 1% of the German population was Jewish! He gathered votes by promising solving local issues and he promised quick fixes to the economy.

chibi Sun 05-May-13 17:41:14

that is totally shitty dawndonna and wrong

flowers

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sun 05-May-13 17:41:38

"If a majority of the electorate thought that killing unwanted children should be allowed"

I think the stats for elective termination when Downs has been established by test were given near the start of this thread (or possibly a similar one).

Sadly, a figure of 90% termination rate rings a bell. Clearly, a vast majority of people exposed to this horrible dilemma think it should be allowed.

duchesse Sun 05-May-13 17:43:34

I meant born children- not wanting to start a pro-choice/anti-abortion debate. Not the right forum. I hoped that that's one policy that 99% of people would agree was an abhorrent one.

chibi Sun 05-May-13 17:43:50

there is a far cry between what people choose, when given the choice, and making it mandatory

many people choose not to test at all

i didn't, with either pregnancy

neither did several friends

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 17:46:31

Jesus tap dancing Christ.

You lot don't half jump before you understand.

I think a work for benefits scheme has many advantages over the current scheme.

I recognise carers can't work for their benefit so we class their care as benefit (in this totally new system).

I would say 24/7 full time care should attract a pay of a good £20k a year. This would go to the carer, extra cash could be pad as neccesary to offset costs of special adaptions etc.

Added to that, working for benefits should attract leave time and education (ie credits towards courses), a holiday for a carer would be thus have to be covered by a suitable care replacement. Unless the cared for went too...

Have a good scan f the above, I'm sure you can fine something to wail about.

Viviennemary Sun 05-May-13 17:48:02

I don't like any of the major parties at the moment and I like their leaders even less. So UKIP have probably come along at a good time to give them a shake up. Labour get rid of Millliband but please not Harriet Harman. And then they might have a better chance of election.

tiggytape Sun 05-May-13 17:51:37

gabsid - People aren't voting UKIP for a government. The phrase is 'influence not power'

A bit like the rise of Green Party voting in 1989 forced the main Westminster parties to have a 'green make-over' The main parties saw people truly favoured things like recycling and not killing off all our fish stocks so introduced a few policies along those lines to keep voters sweet and so lure them back again.

This is what UKIP intends to do. It wants to spark changes in other parties so they start to reflect some of its values.
Labour may have to rethink its opposition to a Europe referendum and rethink the way it present Welfare policies.
Tories will be under huge pressure to head further right on everything and risk splitting the party if they do so.

duchesse - If a majority of the electorate thought that killing unwanted children should be allowed

If you mean abortion - well that is legal isn't it? Under certain circumstances at least.
If you mean policies that are legal but abhorred by many (I suppose abortion also comes under that heading) then, yes democracy should decide. That's the point of democracy. There are things that the majority allow that the minority hate but must tolerate because the majority vote wins.
If you are talking about a safeguard against a party that might seek to form a government to carry out entirely illegal acts and atrocities – I don’t think even UKIPs staunchest adversaries have claimed UKIP are trying to do that!

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sun 05-May-13 17:54:41

" I hoped that that's one policy that 99% of people would agree was an abhorrent one."

Duchesse, please accept my apologies. I misunderstood the point you were making.

duchesse Sun 05-May-13 18:01:09

tiggy, you misunderstand me. I was using my example to illustrate the fact that there are limits to the the power of the people. To say that if a majority of people wanted something awful, that wouldn't make it worthy of debate and considerations. I suppose that what I'm trying to work out is the outer limits of democracy- of course we all want democracy, but at what cost? And how much of it? In uncertain economic times, when life is frankly a lot more shit for many people, it's sadly only human to try to find someone to blame- does that natural urge to find the scapegoat really need to be aired in public and debated? How much of people's primal fears really should be brought out into the open and debated? Genuine questions.

tiggytape Sun 05-May-13 18:15:12

You're right duchesse - but that hasn't happened here.

1 million people don't want "something awful" as you say - they want to leave Europe or restrict future immigration or give the main 3 parties a good kicking at the polls.

None of these things are 'awful' - a lot of them are what many other peaceful and civilised countries choose to do already.

And they are perfectly acceptable things to debate.
Which is good for democracy. Debate leads to the challenge of misconceptions, to new facts coming out, new figures being discussed, new policies formed and considered.

You are saying - but what if we apply that sort of reasoning to killing people? But we're not. We're talking mainstream policies that apply in many other nations a lot like our own.
No political party is winning any election with a mandate to murder innocent people so whilst it might be a good theoretical exercise to perhaps point out that we are only a constitutional monarchy and the Queen has the ultimate power not to invite the leader of the winning party to form a government if she feels it endangers her people, suggesting UKIP voting is leading us that way is a bit bonkers!
Maybe the answer is the limit of our democracy in such a crisis is our monarch?

alemci Sun 05-May-13 18:15:43

Gabsid I think Nazi Germany is not a good comparison. The immigration population make up alot more than 1% and in the Times recently there was an article about the indigenous population being in the minority in 50 years' time - great.

I think immigration does need sorting out and the politicians haven't been listening. This issue has been a problem for the past 10 years' and politicians should have addressed it instead of continuing with it.

infamouspoo Sun 05-May-13 18:15:53

'We class your care as 'work' and pay you accordingly.'

yes please Lazarus. Carers generally work 140 hours a week. At NMW that would be roughly £1000 a week (done in my head so rough)
Yes please. And can we have 5 weeks paid leave a year too.

sieglinde Sun 05-May-13 18:16:54

i think about this sieglinde

chibi, it's interesting that only we, the Auslanders, see the risk. Maybe it's a remote one. But it IS there.

You may all know this from Martin Niemoller

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

They did indeed come for Niemoller and he spent seven years in concentration camps, regretting his own antisemitism.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Sun 05-May-13 18:18:17

" we all want democracy, but at what cost? And how much of it? "

Now, I suspect, we get to the meat of the matter................

My first instinct is that there should be no limits on democracy. If a democratic majority voted for the unspeakable however, who has the right to deny it ? And where would any such denial leave democracy ?confused

tiggytape Sun 05-May-13 18:27:44

duchesse to expand on your scenario of the 'killing people party' when you asked:

I suppose that what I'm trying to work out is the outer limits of democracy

The answer to your scenario -where the majority of people have voted for a party that wants to murder people - is probaby: The Queen.

The Queen has the power to ignore a General Election result. She could invite the leader of the opposition to form a government instead of the 'killing people party'.
It would be a powerless government that could not rule so no laws could be passed.
And then either the 'mad murdering party' would split and some MPs side with the opposition to get other policies through with a workable majority or we'd descend into civil war with the Parliamentary majority quite rightly pointing out that the Queen has gone against convention to ignore the will of the people.

And since, for some crazy reason, most of the voters in this scenario are already in favour of slaughtering innocent people, it would all be bloody and horrible and the nation would grind to a halt until one side could defeat the other outright.

I am thinking that 1 million people voting for UKIP isn't exactly a step down this path no matter how much you might dislike them!

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 18:30:05

alemci - Jews in living in 1920s Germany were 1% of the population, that didn't stop Hitler to make them responsible for the country's dire economic situation. There were many other reasons but it wasn't the Jews.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 18:32:52

'infamouspoo Sun 05-May-13 18:15:53

'We class your care as 'work' and pay you accordingly.'

yes please Lazarus. Carers generally work 140 hours a week. At NMW that would be roughly £1000 a week (done in my head so rough)
Yes please. And can we have 5 weeks paid leave a year too.'

Ha ha. Necky bugger.

You can, but bear in mind it is wages for work... so you'll be inthe higher tax band.

It wouldn't be all roses I am afraid.

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 18:33:21

And how do you define indigenous people. Does it include 3rd or 4th generation black or Indian people?

Xenia Sun 05-May-13 18:42:06

I am 5% Neanderthal genes as I have freckles. We are all originally out of Africa. I had my DNA tracked back 25,000 years to the Caucacus mountains. We are all one people really.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 18:46:16

'gabsid Sun 05-May-13 18:33:21

And how do you define indigenous people. Does it include 3rd or 4th generation black or Indian people?'

They are not indigenous to UK...

'1. Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment. ' (thefreedictionary)

As they do not originate here, nor is it natural that they are here... unless you class the reasons they are here as natural.

Doesn't mean they should be any less welcome, or 2nd class citizens.

White Americans aren't indigenous to the USA either, nor white South Africans.

Of course, how far back do you go wit that? Most English White people are of Viking, Angle or Saxon stock...

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 18:49:38

'chibi Sun 05-May-13 17:32:40

i can't think of the adjective i want here, maybe someone can help me out but

We class your care as 'work' and pay you accordingly

in the context of £58.45/week

yowza.

accordingly, indeed'

Have you figured out the adjective you want yet?

Read LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 17:46:31 first, at the very least.

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 18:56:10

Lazarus - your definition is non-sensical. So, most white British people may not be classed any more indigenous than black or Indians living here.

So, claims that the indigenous population will be in the minority in 50 years time seems absurd.

beatback Sun 05-May-13 19:18:19

TIGGYTAPE. As ever the voice of reason, i have read a lot of your posts on other subjects,and you put it across correctly. if you were to ask most people on this site do you like GRAMMAR SCHOOLS LOWER TAKES BETTER WAGES, 90% would say yes. Now that U.K.I.P have established themselves people will now start looking at U.K.I.P"S policies and will realize,most of them were written on the back of a"FAG PACKET" with no costing or anylsis and probaly would be rewritten next week. What the public has done has demonstrated that they are sick of being treated like 3yr olds,that the M.P.S know best and you are "KIDS" and that what we say is right. AND WHY IF YOU ARE NOT LEFT WING AND YOU LIKE IN THEORY SOME OF U.K.I.P"S POLICIES SHOULD YOU HAVE TO VOTE FOR THE GREENS WHO OFFER YOU NOTHING.

alemci Sun 05-May-13 19:35:19

I know Gabsid about Nazi Germany and understand your point but I don't think it is similar to the situation in the UK now. I think we are a tolerant nation.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 19:41:49

gabsid... do i really need to explain that one to you?

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 19:44:42

I like the idea of fag packet manifestos... shows flexibility.

MPs should be people with similar morals and outlook, to represent your morals and outlook.

Not career politicos who ooze down the street with fancy manifestos that they may well ignore.

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 19:44:54

Yes, that's what I thought, until a nutty right wing party got 1/4 of votes and believe in Daily Mail propaganda.

infamouspoo Sun 05-May-13 19:51:11

alemci, germany before the nazis was where the european enlightenment began. Where jews were first given rights, where music, the arts, sciences and tolerance flourished. Prety fab place by all accounts.

alemci Sun 05-May-13 19:59:51

Yes, but there was an anti semitic feeling in Europe and Hitler played on it.
Look at Wagner - charming.

I still don't think the UK compares.

Adam Adaafi? who is mixed race and a conservative MP was saying that Cameron does need to do something. e.g.compulsory healthcare insurance for newcomers

infamouspoo Sun 05-May-13 20:01:19

There's bubbling anti-semitism in the UK. Friend of mine recently had swastikas drawn all over his work locker. Jewish cemetries are reguarly vanadalised. But most of the racist ire right now is aimed at muslims.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 20:09:30

Are UKIP right wing?

They could be edging in to libertarian.

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 20:09:53

It wasn't the anti semitic feeling Hitler played on, it was the fact that people had no jobs, that the economy was at its knees and that people didn't believe that the government was doing anything about it. Hitler offered solutions and a scape goat.

tiggytape Sun 05-May-13 20:11:59

Thank you beatback. I agree - people in the general population hold beliefs that are not in line with many on MN. We have an aging population, half of whom are male for a start.
Which sort of feeds in to gabsid's point about "a nutty right wing party got 1/4 of votes and believe in Daily Mail propaganda."

They are nutty if you do not agree with them and if nothing about UKIPs message gels with you. But huge numbers of people in the country are looking for the kind of changes UKIP promises.
It doesn't have to be the exact UKIP manifesto - just a nod towards sorting out some things people are unhappy with.
If you ignore that, then UKIP support grows because those people have nobody else that they feels listens to them.

If you are so horrified at UKIP, are you not also worried that 25% of voters feel UKIP is the only party that addresses the concerns they have? What does that say about the state of the country or of politics or of Labour's ability to offer a strong alternative to many things that are hated under the current government? Labour actually have been particularly awful at presenting a strong face in opposition and that has to change to give people real choice between now and 2015

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 20:16:41

IP, DM reports 2005 as a jewish cemetry being vandalised... any links to a more modern UK Jewish cemetriy being vandalised?

Problem with swastikas on a locker, is it isn't necessarily anti-semitism. It is a known 'trigger' for many jews.

gabsid Sun 05-May-13 20:21:42

But UKIP's numbers are wrong, and according to stats many of the Daily Mail stories are not in line with reality. UKIP are offering more than they can possibly deliver.

It's very well dreaming about the ideal world, but ...

NiceTabard Sun 05-May-13 20:22:35

Just saw the last post and wanted to say that round here they have had to have security at some of the synagogues, bus station in v jewish area got vandalised with offensive grafitti + swastikas, saw on the local news recently (ish?) a bunch of kids from JFS got a load of anti-semetic abuse on a bus...

NiceTabard Sun 05-May-13 20:22:52

Oh what does this mean

"Problem with swastikas on a locker, is it isn't necessarily anti-semitism. It is a known 'trigger' for many jews."

lljkk Sun 05-May-13 20:25:58

Libertarian IS usually right wing, no? Libertarian is ultra-anti-regulation, for instance.

claig Sun 05-May-13 20:29:36

'But UKIP's numbers are wrong, and according to stats many of the Daily Mail stories are not in line with reality.'

While the first part is plausible, I find the second part hard to believe.

'UKIP are offering more than they can possibly deliver.'

But all parties do that. Gordon Brown said New Labour had ended boom and bust, and there followeed the biggest bust since the 1930s.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 20:34:44

NiceTabard,

Basically the drawers of the swastikas may not actually understand what they are even drawing. They just know it may upset their target.

Bit like that rather dim woman from burnley who wrote in support of raoul moat... 'RIP raoul moat you legend'. She was thicker than a whale omlete.

NiceTabard Sun 05-May-13 20:38:06

You seriously think that people who draw swastikas on the property of jewish people don't know what they're doing?

That seems rather far fetched.

Strange to give the benefit of the doubt to people who do stuff like that.

chibi Sun 05-May-13 20:41:43

fucking hell lazarus

infamouspoo Sun 05-May-13 20:44:12

drawing swatikas comes under anti semitism in my book. And most synagogues have security and cctv in this country.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 20:49:54

Not really Tabard.

When I was at school that exact scenario played out. The perps had no actual idea what they were drawing, nor its history. Admittedly they weren't to bright. They drew the marks on the lads locker too. (it was dealt with, don't worry).

Not saying that is happening now, just there doesn't have to be anti-semitism for such acts.

chibi, is that the adjective you are looking for? You'll recall you thought I beleived 50 odd quid a week adequate renumeration for full time care of a loved one.

chibi Sun 05-May-13 20:55:33

your post was crystal clear, thanks, there is a limited number of ways to interpret

'We class your care as 'work' and pay you accordingly'

if you had meant something else, perhaps you should have written that.

it is also disingenuous to suggest that people drawing swastikas on stuff belonging to a jewish person have no idea what they are doing - why not draw dicks, or write 'fuck off' or any other number of insults? funny how they went for the classic anti semitic graffito

ha ha.

NiceTabard Sun 05-May-13 21:02:51

If someone is drawing symbols on a jewish person's locker, knowing that symbol will upset them because it seems to upset jewish people, even if they don't know exactly why it upsets them, then that's anti-semitic.

If you are doing something to upset or threaten a person because they are jewish, then that is anti-semitic.

It doesn't matter if they didn't know what it meant, it matters that they knew it was upsetting for jewish people and so they went and did it to a jewish person.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 21:06:39

If you say so. So they didn't do it to others because...

chibi, it was blatant, you just liked the idea of climbing on your charger.

NiceTabard Sun 05-May-13 21:08:23

What? Of course I say so.

If a person observes that being called the N word upsets black people, and so goes and calls a black person the N word, then that's racist, isn't it.

Or would you say not.

confused tbh

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 21:12:09

Personally I think the 'N' word should be sealed up in concrete and dropped in the North Sea.

The 'rules' surrounding its use are so messed up. It can be used with out upsetting people remember.

BollyGood Sun 05-May-13 21:19:23

NiceTabard

Basically the drawers of the swastikas may not actually understand what they are even drawing. They just know it may upset their target

Bit like that rather dim woman from burnley who wrote in support of raoul moat... 'RIP raoul moat you legend'. She was thicker than a whale omlete

I think unwittingly you may just about have summed up why certain people are voting for UKIP Lazaruss I have also noticed how patronising and anti-women you have shown yourself to be on here.

LazarussLozenge Sun 05-May-13 21:22:00

Not this nonsense again...

Patronising maybe.

Anti-woman no.

BollyGood Sun 05-May-13 21:23:05

I have read everything you have written on here as has my 21 year old daughter. I disagree.