So Nigel finally shows his true colours

[muminhants]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31846453

axing equality laws

Kam odious little man. Very well put.

Some interesting debate here.

The middle class/language/competition thing is very pertinent. So far the middle classes have been able to say that immigration is a good thing, it adds to our culture etc - and I agree it is.

BUT when their own children still can't get jobs, or houses - and it isn't just the builders and plumbers, ("but the Poles work harder!!!") things will change.

British kids will be at a huge disadvantage as pointed out by several posters upthread and not just because of languages.

Means tested scholarships to the private schools do not take into account a flat in Prague and house in the Czech countryside so someone renting and on benefits here gets priority over a middle class home owner.

As someone else said upthread - a Government's duty is to do the best for its citizens. That's all.

The thing that really frightens me about ukip is that people think its ok to vote for them. Either they agree with the stuff they spout or they buy into the whole 'man of the people, I talk common sense, you can trust me ' bollox and don't look any further.

Oh well. If they get into power, am sure the immigration thing will be balanced out by the rush of sane people emigrating. I will be first in line. I have no wish to be governed by a fascist party like ukip.

Means tested scholarships to the private schools do not take into account a flat in Prague and house in the Czech countryside so someone renting and on benefits here gets priority over a middle class home owner.
Yes they do.

The general ‘problem’ of the United Kingdom Independence Party is, whether led by Farage, or someone later and further to the right wing than Attila the Hun, they will NOT go away until the UK has their democratic say on our future membership of the EU.

As while immigration with them will remain an ‘issue’ whether our economy/infrastructure can cope or not, many other doubts on our membership will arise in the years ahead i.e. why we should be economically held back by an unreformed EU and subject to disruptions like an exit by Greece, or Treaty change if Iceland leaves.

Therefore the UK government NEEDS a democratic ‘IN’ mandate in order to both weather the immigration and other future storms that WILL continue to cause widespread citizen dissatisfaction with our continued membership, and allow the UKIPs (and sons of UKIP) to gain so much traction, on the policies of division.

A Referendum to my mind is the only way forward, as BOTH SIDES would have to qualify their claims BEFORE WE VOTE on why we should remain IN or OUT i.e. we would lose 3 million jobs if left, and will be assimilated into a uncompetitive Super state if stayed in – as in truth, NO ONE ON BALANCE, seems to know the truth.

What WE DO KNOW is that to even have an EU Referendum, a political party in a 650(?) seat Westminster Parliament will need to have (or have behind them) a 326 seat or more majority – so UKIP and their claims of ‘what they will do’ when they have 5, 10 or 20 MP’s, whatever it is - is about as ‘onest as a Nine Euro note.

Arguably ALL of our politicians should already know whether we would REALLY be better off ‘in’ or ‘out’ in order to objectively vote on various changes, so why not have the facts, the debate, and then let the people vote – as what future is there for extreme nationalist parties of any colour, for many years ahead, when ‘the people’ have spoken?

People can't get a school place

Not true, and one of many myths that UKIP like to propagate. By law every child has to have a school place (unless they are home eucated or similar), and that is what has to happen - if it doesn't it is because the local authority in question is not obeying the law, not because of immigration. It may not be the school place that the child's parents want, but that is a very different issue and, again, often nothing to do with immigration at all.

They're probably thinking of places like Peterborough, which is having to create about 6,000 more school places to meet the needs of the local population. That's a lot (even though many places are facing demographic difficulties) and it has to be at the expense of other services.

"That's a lot (even though many places are facing demographic difficulties) and it has to be at the expense of other services."

Not if budgeted for; Labour I believe will increase the Eduction budget in real (inflation adjusted) terms, the Conservatives have said no real adjustment to additional spending BUT offer an additional £7 billion for new school places etc.

The point being, as a legal right and having additional money available, most parties seem to have a solid plan.

Isitmebut I agree that a referendum would be the democratic thing to do, but I have an issue with the amount of influence that the right-wing press have as compared to the left-wing press. I can't help but worry that common sense messages would not reach people. So many people seem to want to believe that the foreigners get social housing just by snapping their fingers, get benefits the moment they walk in the door, walk in to see employers and tell them 'I'll do the job for less'. If people are so quick to believe the worst of those who are 'other', what chance do sense and reason have?

If the extra money has reached Peterborough in time, then I'm sure people there will be relieved. For this is happening now (allocations before the election) and so post-election pledges will be too late.

(Too late for UKIP to make a difference either, of course. I'm not trying to say that they have any timely answers on this one. Just pointing out that there are places where getting the right number of school places is a severe challenge. And UKIP plays to this, particularly in local elections).

Pointythings .... regarding your examples of 'what people think', I'd suggest as most of it comes from UKIP so gets a fair amount of left-right wing press balance, on the 'Marmite Principle'.

The FACTS are the FACTS i.e. qualified information the actual cost of EU membership, how many jobs really might be lost if leave, what migration controls to and from a post EU membership could we expect, would all the advantages of ridding ourselves of EU regulation be replaced by similar from a left wing UK government anyway etc etc.

Isitmebut I am not entirely sure it is that simple. A lot of the rhetoric that UKIP spouts is splashed over the pages of the right-wing press on a daily basis. I'm not at all sure that the likes of the Daily Mail are backing UKIP, though - they seem to be very quick to mock UKIP and their allegiance seems to be strongly Tory. At the same time their sentiments are often very firmly UKIP. It confuses me - what is it that they want?

The other thing is that on the whole, more people read and follow the right-wing press than the left-wing press. This may well be because the majority of people are naturally right-wing, but if we are looking at news coverage/readership, then the right wing position gets more airtime. This may be democratic based on the majority view, though.

I would love to see a referendum campaign based on facts. I would love to see a real and thorough analysis of the impact of leaving vs staying. My gut feeling is that there is an enormous amount wrong with the EU - the Euro being one of the biggest, I have seen its economic impact on my family back in Holland. However, I don't trust any UK government free of regulation on the rights of employees not to erode the rights that employees currently have.

Whatever happens, I'm staying in the UK. If the answer is 'out' then I will naturalise.

pointythings .. I would counter that left-right bias with the following;

The left wing press is more politically 'loyal' than the right i.e. more likely to keep on about the Conservative coalition Bedroom Tax, than the abysmal Labour council/social home build from 1997 to 2010, and in benefits give more column inches to a relative few that fall through the cracks, than how many hundreds of thousands who are now off benefits that didn't really qualify, like the 900,000 claiming Sickness but never attended a post 2010 medical check.

The right wing press while on balance favours right wing issues, the extent depends if an editor change, as in the Mail a several years ago who liked Brown - but they'll bash anyone e.g UKIP, as they want to sell papers, so have to gauge 'public interest'.

And don't forget the media political ebbs and flows has not been one way; the BBC always leftie, Sky's 2000's political reporter Adam Boulton was married to a senior Blair aid, the Sun 'that won it' was Labour 1997 to 2010, the Financial Times had a Blair/Brown bias, the Guardian, Observer and Mirror always to the left - so I'd suggest that papers tend to 'move' on what they see before them.

Currently I'd suggest they've move right as the Blair hype/honeymoon (lasting two parliaments) took the country in the wrong direction, and post the huge 2010 general election, any papers economic/political hack who looks at domestic policies DETAIL, find some parties wanting, especially UKIP's domestic policies.

I get it about the ebb and flow - public opinion ebbs and flows too. I'm not sure the BBC is leftie though - both the 6 o'clock news and the Today Programme have been irritating me lately. Any time a Labour or Lib Dem politician is on, they get cut off after about 6 words, any time Nigel Farage or a senior Tory is on, they are allowed to finish what they are saying and are barely challenged at all. It's a shocking amount of right-wing bias at the moment. Not surprising though, with Chris Patten running the show. And perhaps the Beeb is just echoing the country.

To be fair, I do get tired of the left-wing press and its hobby horses too. I'd like a news outlet that genuinely held everyone up to scrutiny.

If you look at it as a numbers game however, the right wing press definitely has the numbers in terms of its readership - there are fewer readers on the left than on the right if you look at circulation.

Re the Beeb ..... they might be moving to the political centre and needing some 'balance', but several of their key radio & TV interviewers were renowned lefties, especially through Labour's administration, so how you see them treating some Labour & Lib Dems now (possibly based on policies) - the Conservatives through that period were treated as if came off the street on the bottom someones from Labour's shoe, or a Lib Dem sandal.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2354713/BBC-chief-admits-We-deep-liberal-bias-migrants--changed.html

www.thecommentator.com/article/1953/exclusive_bbc_left_wing_political_bias_illustrated_through_uk_political_funding_revelations

Which might explain why the Conservative's got so much racist shite thrown at them in BBC studios back in 2005, when they saw that the vagueness on EU numbers COULD be a problem, and was ONE of several key pledges.

Conservative 2005 Manifesto .

Titled; “Are you thinking what we are thinking?” It’s time for action.

Secure borders and controlled immigration: The manifesto proposes a new border police at Britain's busiest air and sea ports, with 24 hour surveilance. The party would set a quota on economic migrants and reject asylum-seekers who are not vetted by the UNHCR.

en.wikinews.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_launches_manifesto

I have absolutely no time for dogmatic lefties - or right-wingers, come to that. Which is why I read media across a broad political spectrum.

Re asylum seekers, I don't get why the first safe country you arrive at rule isn't enforced. The UK is only rarely going to be that first safe country. I do think there is a big difference between the Conservatives in 2005 and the Conservatives now - the 'strivers vs skivers' debates helps no-one, the push within Universal Credit to hound people already working into pushing for more hours, more pay, better jobs when that may not be realistic is not going to help anyone. And I don't think we should be too celebratory about the number of people coming off benefits, not with the rise of zero-hours contracts. There really do need to be restrictions on those. I also have nothing against testing people who claim sickness and disability benefits, but there needs to be more common sense. Some people will not get better - people with Parkinsons, MS, Rheumatoid Arthritis, to name but a few. There need to be sensible exemptions for some conditions. People with mental illnesses need a hell of a lot more compassion in terms of their benefits - I work in mental health, I meet a lot of people who are desperate to work but can't, because there is no flexibility around their fluctuating ability to work. It all needs an enormous rethink.

I feel very strongly that the present government has fuelled hatred for those who do not work. UKIP is only going to do worse.

We always hijack these threads, don't we? I do enjoy debating with you, though I suspect we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Isitmebut

I could not agree more. Personally I'm pro-Europe (and grudgingly accept that means the EU). The lack of a chance for me to express my opinion in a referendum is frustrating in the extreme.

Same here Lurking.

My main concerns are: 1. staying in Europe and 2. keeping UKIP out.

Fortunately those two aims coincide, but who to support instead?

pointythings Re asylum seekers, I don't get why the first safe country you arrive at rule isn't enforced. The UK is only rarely going to be that first safe country.

I'm not expert on asylum law, but its to do with the free movement of workers, isn't it? ie once a third country national gains the right of residence in an EU member state, the right to move also exists, and extends to their family members.

Since much of the newer legislation and directives in this area are done via the OMC and consultation with the social partners, isn't the difficulty in the UK that there is less consultation with the social partners (for that read trade unions) over actual policy making and its seen more as a war between the two? Therefore the UK has less chance of influencing new directives and has to resort to negotiated opt outs and later opt ins as a reactionary response?

This area of law isn't harmonised any more, and the social partners virtually have the ability to write legislation - so perhaps the UK should be devising more workable ways of doing more and having more influence in the EU.

Regarding 'staying in Europe', does anyone really think that with THE FACTS from both sides of the argument, the UK would vote 'OUT'?

I think I read quite a bit on politics and economies (yes I need to get a life), but I could not give a definitive answer whether we should stay in or leave, as it is not just about immigration or any other numerical or political statistic, so we need to see ALL the pros and cons - and as others are thinking of leaving the EU, the ONLY way the time and resources will be given to the debate on what is best for us, is via the presentation of the facts PRIOR to a UK referendum.

UKIP's Farage is on record as saying that he believes that the UK would vote 'stay in', as he correctly knows that most Westminster politicians believe our future in is Europe.

But 650 MP's only have one vote in a referendum of what, 65 million citizens, so who cares where their bias is?

UKIP's Farage therefore knows that as their party polling 3% of the vote in 2010 stopped the Conservatives getting a majority, the current 15% will ensure that no referendum/pro EU Labour's Miliband Prime Minister will lead a Grand Socialist Coalition of pro EU Westminster MP's - and UKIP MP will get to spread more chaos in the House.

THAT is why Farage has said that UKIP will support the Conservatives in a Referendum IF the referendum is set for 2015, as a policy he says will 'support' a referendum, ensures it will not happen without a Treaty change for the next 5-10 years.

The FACT the apparently pro EU Lords would initially object to the passing of an EU Referendum bill if a LARGEST party didn't have a majority in their own right, SO THERE WOULD BE NO CHANCE OF AN EU REFERENDUM IN 2015, matters not a political party, who no longer really wants to offer what it says on its UKIP can, Independence.

Ooops ... the last line should read ... 'wants to democratically offer what is says on its UKIP can, Independence.'

Surprised you got that wrong Isitmebut, given that you copy and paste your long dull screeds into every thread that even passingly mentions UKIP!

Have a look at how many apprenticeship there are for engineers in the UK

www.engineeringuk.com/View/?con_id=360

Where do we get engineers from? Where do we get doctors from?

The country will suffer unless we change our own education system and graduate programs etc