EPTWe desperately need some young people.
UK? Yuk - Page 2
| Blogs > mdb |
|
kafkaesque
Germany2006 Posts
We desperately need some young people. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On January 30 2013 23:19 Pandemona wrote: Well isn't every party the same logic as that then? No. The point is that populist parties get "easy votes" because of bad politics. A joke analogy would be to have 3 parties in some form of college election go at it arguing about teacher salaries, the state of education etc... then comes a populist 4th party and says "more beer for every student" and they get a huge amount of votes, simply because it's much easier to see personal benefits. This is common everywhere, especially lately in Europe where right-wing shit parties get tons of votes because they bring up immigration issues and makes all other politicians look like lying douchebags, instead of going for big important issues, they just say "lulz, XX% of rapes are done by people of muslim origin, we want to stop immigration but ALL OTHER POLITICIANS WANT TO GIVE AWAY OUR COUNTRY TO THE ARABS". BTW, I'm not speaking specifically about the UKIP here, there are far more extreme examples etc. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
UKIP are based around anti Europe, but that only gets you so far, look at BNP party. That is based on racism, and that only gets so far due to it being a purely racist party. UKIP has got itself so much higher than just an Anti Europe party. It takes more than just "vote for us, we will make sure we are out of Europe". The leader himself has already stated he thinks the EU will be dead in 5 years anyway as everyone will have left (before UK) or it goes bankrupt from bailing eachother out. I know the point your saying, but i think it is completely wrong aspect to take, as every party is the same. It baits votes, whether it is for one thing or for another. Strong parties have multiple policies, like Labour/Conservaties/UKIP/Lib Dems (in England) | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
Immigration is driving down costs in health care in the richer part of the EU, while putting the health care systems of Eastern Europe under enormous pressure. People with great skills benefit because they'll always have good jobs and they get higher quality care for the same price. To think that you can just get rid of all the immigrants and fill their jobs with "native" UK citizens is crazy. For some jobs there wouldn't be enough skilled people to replace the immigrants. For other positions it would drive up costs, either making the whole enterprise unprofitable or in case of public services lead to higher taxes or budget deficit. As far as "unproductive" immigration (i.e thieves, prostitution gangs or even people who immigrate for the benefits), it's certainly a problem but there are ways to deal with it. The real problem is how to create a working social contract where more and more of the material wealth is created by a smaller and smaller part of the population. And it's not just because of concentration of wealth. There's a concentration of skills. Low skilled jobs aren't just being taken over by immigrants (although that's happening too), they are disappearing because of automation too. There's a real danger of large parts of society finding themselves unable to contribute to society in any meaningful way. | ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
On January 31 2013 00:04 docvoc wrote: Wow, what a double standard. Really? Those are gypsies and not those hard working Romanians of old? Give me a break. This blog is ridiculous, and this comment makes it even more obvious. I'm sorry that some internet images have soiled your image of Britain, and that a small, vocal minority of people have ruined the promise of England for you; I say this especially when Britain has had issues with Romanians in the past with gangs and such, and your answer to that is that these people aren't Romanians, but Gypsies. Leave that bias at the door if you want to complain about people not being part of the "modern globalized world." As I said, its not internet images. Its these internet images posted on official british media and top british politician speaking about the danger of the bulgarian and romanian job seekers. Gypsies are another topic of discussion, but these people shown in the links are definately not regular romanians. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On January 31 2013 00:51 mdb wrote: As I said, its not internet images. Its these internet images posted on official british media and top british politician speaking about the danger of the bulgarian and romanian job seekers. Gypsies are another topic of discussion, but these people shown in the links are definately not regular romanians. Nigel Farage is not a 'top politician'. Most intelligent people regard UKIP as a joke for a reason. Also those posters were done by users and sent in, and the Guardian then posted the ones they found the funniest. | ||
|
TheMooseHeed
United Kingdom535 Posts
| ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6641 Posts
On January 30 2013 23:22 Xapti wrote: Why were there laws against Bulgarians and Romanians working in (migrating to?) England there in the first place? What were they (ban/illegal, or what?), and Why were they removed? It's because Bulgaria and Romania didn't join the EU until 2007, it took a few years for all the EU laws and regulations came into place allowing them to move to the UK. | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On January 31 2013 01:21 Zaros wrote: Your always welcome here IMO, theres a problems with coming to claim benefits etc but thts simple to solve, if you want to come here to work your more than welcome, and to people saying we are full we arn't 92% of britain is rural plenty of space to build. Yeah fuck the countryside lets build thousand of houses on it, who needs forests and fields. Lets throw houses on it... Dude come on ;_; i'm not one for green peace and that but, there is hardly anywhere left to build houses anymore, fields are being torn down everyday to make new houses etc. Wouldn't you want some field/forrest for your kids to play in or to go for a walk with your dog in 0.O | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On January 31 2013 01:25 Pandemona wrote: Yeah fuck the countryside lets build thousand of houses on it, who needs forests and fields. Lets throw houses on it... Dude come on ;_; i'm not one for green peace and that but, there is hardly anywhere left to build houses anymore, fields are being torn down everyday to make new houses etc. Wouldn't you want some field/forrest for your kids to play in or to go for a walk with your dog in 0.O 92% of the country is rural there is plenty of space to build more while keeping the country side. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Sounds fun xD (Hypothetical analysis ftw) | ||
|
Ventris
Germany1226 Posts
| ||
|
BrTarolg
United Kingdom3574 Posts
I'm a staunch, supporter of UKIP and Nigel Farage (i would say the party wouldn't be nearly as much without him) In regards to immigration, there's a big difference between skilled labour adding to our economy, and unskilled labour taking away from our economy. Whether we like it or not, Britain has a very big issue with current welfare state and immigration, and it negatively impacts our economy and the people living in it. One way would be to have tighter controls on immigration. However, i find it appalling that the general response to UKIP policies are that they are labelled as "racist" or "crazy" and therefore are discarded without considering their merits. These are often typical responses in the general world when people want to ignore problems or solutions. I also find it quite offensive that people would label voters of UKIP as "unintelligent" - on the contrary, UKIP is attracting voters from a demographic like mine, of smart, young workers who have sound understanding of economics and economic policy, and for those who follow a more Austrian view of economics. --- There are certainly other ways to solve these kinds of problems, such as a reduction in the welfare state, reduction in the state sector, cuts in taxes etc. All of which are policies UKIP strive for, from a small government, austrian economics point of view. The issue we currently have is that whilst the conservative government claims to be running a different agenda from the other two major parties (though UKIP is now bigger than libdem and only growing) - unfortunately we didn't get the austerity we were promised, and state defecit and the size of the public sector is increasing, instead of decreasing, and regulation and inefficiency is going up, not down. All 3 major parties (lib lab con) are still following a "borrow lots, screw the budget, don't really want to leave the EU" I see UKIP as the voice of opposition. We pay 50 million pounds to the EU every day (or 60m euros) for the privilege of being within Europe. Along with this privelege we get a huge number of regulatory and red tape laws coming from Brussels, and a net defecit to our economy. Those who believe that trade with Europe is our primary concern need to see that Europe is shrinking as a part of british trade every day, and they also need to look at the many countries who arn't part of Europe but trade fine with Europe anyway (Singapore anyone?) --- No, i don't support ALL of UKIP's policies, nor am i a "blind idiot" as some of you may like to believe. I chose my allegiance through a long process of weighing up and considering the merits and benefits of UKIP policies vs other parties. If you still wish to label UKIP voters and supporters of Nigel Farage as "racists" or "xenophobes" (and btw, my family is a chinese immigrant to the UK), then that's OK However, i hope that you too vote for your party not just because "you always have done" or because you think they are "morally superior", but because you have considered their policies and their ability to perform and actually agree with the direction they want to take the country. | ||
|
NKB
United Kingdom608 Posts
On January 31 2013 01:31 Pandemona wrote: So out of that 92% how much of that is actually able to be built upon? Probably 60% of it max. That leaves then 30% of hills and stuff, deep forests (i dno xD). So 60% of flattened "rural" area's, to be built upon, so say 20% of that is built upon to help out the growing population, that leaves 40% of flattened rural area for the whole of the UK to use as country side xD and 30% of it hills to climb upon or forests to rummage through! Sounds fun xD (Hypothetical analysis ftw) Also hypothetical analysis, alot of the flat rural areas can't be built on safely because of national parks and the such like and also are good friends the environmental agency and having plenty of SSSI's dotted around the country  | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On January 31 2013 01:49 NKB wrote: Also hypothetical analysis, alot of the flat rural areas can't be built on safely because of national parks and the such like and also are good friends the environmental agency and having plenty of SSSI's dotted around the country Hypothetical analysis ftw!! xD | ||
|
Dunmer
United Kingdom568 Posts
| ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
| ||
