Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 109

Thread: Farage NEW PM

  1. #61
    Super Moderator Derby Tup's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Worth
    Posts
    16,688
    The thing that amuses me is fellrunners ie lovers of wide-open spaces (we are all fellrunners arenít we? Not just anonymous internet trolls) moaning about the country being Ďfullí. If itís full where you live why donít you move? Iím in my mid-50ís and have never lived anywhere remotely full
    Last edited by Derby Tup; 16-04-2019 at 09:11 AM.

  2. #62
    Master DrPatrickBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Marple, Manchester
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by anthonykay View Post
    As far as I can see, Farage himself is not a racist, but the party he founded (the first one, UKIP) attracted racists like a light attracts moths.
    Wonder why that was, would it becasue the likes of Farage were saying the things the racists wanted to hear. As far as that photo, I linked was concerned, a "truer" one would have been Romanians in a Bucharest bus station queuing to board a bus to London. Only problem is is they would all be white and being honest would look little different to any bus queue in the UK. Much better to use a queue of dark skinned people who are probably all muslim, of which half of them are members of Islamic State.

    Farage may or may not be racists, but he has no quams about using those sentiments to achieve what he wants, "the UK out of the EU".

  3. #63
    Master Witton Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    6,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Derby Tup View Post
    The thing that amuses me is fellrunners ie lovers of wide-open spaces (we are all fellrunners arenít we? Not just anonymous internet trolls) moaning about the country being Ďfullí. If itís full where you live why donít you move? Iím in my mid-50ís and have never lived anywhere remotely full
    I moved from Rossendale to Blackburn. Didn't think much of it. I was just moving closer to my place of work in Skelmersdale at the time.

    Kept my original GP - but when the out of hours service changes kicked in I had to find a new one. It took me some time in Blackburn. I was lucky to get one it turns out.

    I kept my old NHS dentist, but then when he decided to move to only private clients, I couldn't get one in Blackburn and so have a 20 mile drive to one.

    I hadn't considered school places. But the secondary schools in Blackburn were full, apart from 2 that were in special measures.
    I found after I started coaching at the club, that many Blackburn parents sent their kids out of town to schools in Whalley, Clitheroe, Preston and often these were kids being sent from the wrong side of Blackburn such as one that travelled Darwen to Whalley.

    If I'd stayed put in Rossendale, I might not have experienced these difficulties.

    As fell runners we are aware of limits on race entries for a number of reasons and sometimes it is down to the capacity of the venue to cope.

    The UK does not have the capacity to cope with a ten fold increase in the population growth of the country. That's an opinion, but it's backed up by ample evidence out there.
    Richard Taylor
    "William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
    Sid Waddell

  4. #64
    Master DrPatrickBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Marple, Manchester
    Posts
    2,595
    This is off topic but related to what has just been said. What do people think of how to fix the population dependency ratio issue, because continuously increasing the population is not sustainable.

    More rapid increase of the retirement age is a must, but do you also stop dragging out the lives of chronically ill people, with very expensive health treatments?

  5. #65
    Master Muddy Retriever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Muddy puddle at Temple Newsam
    Posts
    1,661
    Quote Originally Posted by noel View Post
    Why do I think it's been pointed out? Because pro-leave politicians use immigration as a reason to leave the EU by saying "we'd like reduce immigration, but we can't without leaving the EU". Whereas it's a spurious argument, because (a) we have control over at least half of immigration currently but choose not to exercise any control over it (b) actually politicians don't want to because they know immigration grows the economy and growth in the economy is one of their key performance indicators - rightly or wrongly (I actually think wrongly - growth for the sake of it is a pointless objective).

    Or why do I think it's higher? Because the UK is an attractive place for people to come and live and work. Many of whom speak English, due to language links established from the empire days.
    Given that the population of the rest of the world is vastly more than the population of the EU it is no surprise that immigration from the former is more especially given our historic links with the Commonwealth. I think you're wrong to say that we chose not to exercise any control over it. If we allowed free movement of people from the rest of the world then immigration would be a good deal higher than it is. I think it is indisputable that people from the rest of the word find it harder to come to the UK than people from the EU.

    It is often propagated by remainers that all leavers want immigration to be reduced. In fact for many like me it is much more nuanced than that. I think that it is for the Government of the day to decide the appropriate level of immigration that is suitable for the country given skill shortages and the pressure on infrastructure etc. They are then accountable every five years for that decision and others. At present under free movement of people, those from the EU have an absolute right to come and settle in the UK. So if Oracle is right and the eurozone is on the cusp of another economic crisis, we could see a mass influx of people wanting to come here and there would be nothing we could do about it.

  6. #66
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by anthonykay View Post
    As far as I can see, Farage himself is not a racist, but the party he founded (the first one, UKIP) attracted racists like a light attracts moths. Farage got so concerned that his main project of taking Britain out of the EU would get submerged in accusations of racism, that he put in place strict rules to ban racists from UKIP. Now that party is being led by Gerard Batten, who seems to think that UKIP stands for United Kingdom Islamophobe Party. Farage has had to dissociate himself from UKIP, while Batten finds himself in a bit of a bind: he can't revoke Farage's rules because that would be openly admitting that UKIP welcomes racists, so we have the bizarre situation where someone who is banned from UKIP membership is taken on as an "adviser".

    Meanwhile, Farage has gone on to form a new single-issue party (the clue is in the name). He has no credible plans to deal with all those other important issues listed by Derby Tup, although I am sure he could come up with some clever soundbites to rally the troops.
    But Farage does have policies and he has said so just a few days ago on his radio show. He said that the policies would be the same as when he was in charge of UKIP. That's consistency for you. For instance no foreign aid is a great policy UKIP held to. You won't get that with Labour or the Tories I.e. sticking to a principle. Simples!

  7. #67
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by noel View Post
    Has anyone on this thread yet pointed out that immigration to the UK from outside the EU is higher than from within the EU (and has been for a long time)?

    The main source of "the problem" of immigration has been a strong economy offering jobs to people. If you think leaving the EU will improve the economy, but are worried about immigration, you're on the horns of a dilemma.
    Noel you're skirting around the issue. Fundamentally the UK doesn't want immigration to welfare. They don't want miles of people coming here for cheap labour jobs or no jobs then having their children's education, health care etc paid by the state. It pushes their already low standard of living further down because they have to pay for it.

    So it's you Noel that is on the horns of a dilemma. If you want free movement of people - full stop - then you have to abolish welfare because you're going to attract a majority that are attracted by that welfare. The country can't last long with that policy. Simples.

  8. #68
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Derby Tup View Post
    The thing that amuses me is fellrunners ie lovers of wide-open spaces (we are all fellrunners aren’t we? Not just anonymous internet trolls) moaning about the country being ‘full’. If it’s full where you live why don’t you move? I’m in my mid-50’s and have never lived anywhere remotely full
    And the thing that amuses me is fell runners are supposed to love freedom but then support policies and parties that control all aspects of their lives. Why is that?

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    202
    All the usual remainer straw men noel. What is the point in answering since the same straw men get echoed ad infinitum. Now the reality.

    First. We know who and how many are coming from other than EU - they have to apply to come.

    EU can just roll up when they feel like it making the problem uncontrollable.

    Second: One thing no migrant brings is accomodation. England (as opposed to UK) is one of densest country for population other than micro states in the EU, and we already have 10 percent increase. Millions. So it is causing a massive accomodation problem. Even the most optimistic forecasts by liars like corbyn, dont come close to housing the migrants at the peaks of flow. In addtion - many of them want to live in London adding to the massive accomodation crisis for own resident. So we have to apply a brake.

    It is not our fault EU is so crap, they want to come here.

    Third. Every developed country in the world other than EU controls who comes. EU is the exception, not the rule.

    SoFor as long as EU is run so badly that many of the youngsters prefer to come here, (causing as many problems for the states they leave as the ones they come to) and until EU gets its house in order and stops laying waste to countries, we have to put on a brake.

    I notice our main corbynista has gone. But one reason they come is Britain is run for the many not the few. We have a massive no tax threshold , indeed give it away with tax credits, and most of our tax is payed by the top few percent (Corbyns main slogan is a complete lie, like the rest of his manifesto). In most of the countries that EU lays waste they have a 20 percent tax even for lowest earners and high rates kick in far lower, and they earn far less than we do on average. So all the professionals leave, making the problems worse.

    So Until EU sorts out its crap economics, and allows these countries to grow by setting growth budgets, ( by ditiching the euro, and adopting their own interest rates and exchange rat5es) it is it is asking for trouble allowing the flood here to countries run for the many. But like our own parliament has no idea of what is north of watford. in brussels and Berlin they have no concept of how bad it is far away in italy greece or portugal, for many of the EU subjects. Juncker has only one thing to say to them "keep taking the medicine, it pays for myexpenses and berlin is waiting for another trainful of loot, so time to sell your grandmother, if you havent sold her already" From which you can know I take a dim view of EU and the hypocrisy of it.




    Quote Originally Posted by noel View Post
    Why do I think it's been pointed out? Because pro-leave politicians use immigration as a reason to leave the EU by saying "we'd like reduce immigration, but we can't without leaving the EU". Whereas it's a spurious argument, because (a) we have control over at least half of immigration currently but choose not to exercise any control over it (b) actually politicians don't want to because they know immigration grows the economy and growth in the economy is one of their key performance indicators - rightly or wrongly (I actually think wrongly - growth for the sake of it is a pointless objective).

    Or why do I think it's higher? Because the UK is an attractive place for people to come and live and work. Many of whom speak English, due to language links established from the empire days.
    Last edited by Oracle; 16-04-2019 at 02:35 PM.

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Within sight of Leicestershire's Beacon Hill
    Posts
    873
    Quote Originally Posted by CL View Post
    But Farage does have policies and he has said so just a few days ago on his radio show. He said that the policies would be the same as when he was in charge of UKIP. That's consistency for you. For instance no foreign aid is a great policy UKIP held to. You won't get that with Labour or the Tories I.e. sticking to a principle. Simples!
    Thank you CL, that's very reassuring. I had begun to worry that my only reason for not wanting to vote for the Brexit party was personal distaste for Nigel Farage (which is not a good reason), but now I realise that he does actually have policies that I totally disagree with, like no foreign aid.
    In his lifetime he suffered from unreality, as do so many Englishmen.
    Jorge Luis Borges

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •