Nick Griffin on question time

softlad

I've often wondered - when people talk about the 'PC brigade' - what or who are they specifically referring to..?? If they are at brigade strength there must be a fair few of them and they sound very organised...

It's time to name and shame these faceless individuals....

mercsport

'sicknote'

The holocaust denial nonsense I liken to the lunar conspiracy nuts that declare that the manned lunar landings were a film industry mock-up for the tv cameras. In essence, harmless. At least I can't see why anyone would get worked up enough to take the utterances of a very, very few obsessives seriously enough to want to get them banged up in jail (free speech and all that). Just odd, that's all.

btw, "I am not sure where you live" : I'm reminded that upon every post of mine there's a link to a crap website that'll give you some idea ( I think. Must have a look-see to remind myself - even if it's still there).

Yep, still there.

sicknote

mercsport wrote:

'sicknote'

The holocaust denial nonsense I liken to the lunar conspiracy nuts that declare that the manned lunar landings were a film industry mock-up for the tv cameras. In essence, harmless. At least I can't see why anyone would get worked up enough to take the utterances of a very, very few obsessives seriously enough to want to get them banged up in jail (free speech and all that). Just odd, that's all.

btw, "I am not sure where you live" : I'm reminded that upon every post of mine there's a link to a crap website that'll give you some idea ( I think. Must have a look-see to remind myself - even if it's still there).

Yep, still there.

mercsport

I am not trying to have a got at you and hope you dont feel that way.

What I meant by ''I am not sure where you live'', is that people can see people or things that happen very differently depending on where and how you see it.
As for people like Nick Griffin, I have been unlucky to have to had some close contact with people like him ( East London NF ), so my view on people like him is a personal one plus having them march stop just a few miles from where I live now ( this has not happened for years by the way ).

The holocaust denial nonsense is just that but if you look at it from some of the people that suffered from it, be it losing family members or being in it at the time, I can see why people would want to take it that far, even if it does in some way stop free speech.
Right or wrong you should at least be able to understand that .

Porgy

softlad wrote:

teagar wrote:

If you seriously think this man or his party has anything other than technical legitimacy, I seriously question your morality.

technical legitimacy is all that is required. If moral legitimacy was a prerequesite of being on question time, the panel would probably be empty...

Too right - New Labour would have forfeited their moral right to be on QT when they set about defending warmonger Blair's lies....and failed to enact the progressive policies that were in their 1997 manifesto such as Robin Cook's ethical foreign policy.

finchy

Porgy wrote:

failed to enact the progressive policies that were in their 1997 manifesto such as Robin Cook's ethical foreign policy.

Well, they did sell the Indonesian government a load of Hawks with which to defend themselves against all those East Timorese villagers...

guilliano

teagar wrote:

guilliano wrote:

Someone said that the BNP have more lies than the other "main" parties....... sorry, but I disagree. The BNP have one lie: "We are not racist". Nothing is ever said about ANYTHING else they stand for outside of their own literature.

The QT was an appalling waste of time and effort. The whole point of it (as has been stated) was to bash Nick Griffin. We heard nothing of BNP policies, just Nick Griffin's opinions and long ago quotes. Where were the questions on ALL parties policies on NHS spending? On expenses? On Education? Immigration was touched on but again we heard nothing on actual policy, just party spin.

I honestly wanted to hear what Nick Griffin had to say on current high profile topics, all I heard was him fending off personal attacks followed by Dimbleby repeating what was said or someone in the crowd/panel shouting over him so I couldn't hear his view or the party line.

I have no interest in hearing the opinion of someone who claims, that a former leader of the KKK was "almost not totally violent", who disputes issues on the existence of the Holocaust as any acclaimed historian understands it.

Nor do I have any interest in hearing the lines from a party who's members felt that Griffin wasn't hard line enough, and said: "I'm starting to think this appealing to the mainstream approach is the wrong direction. I would rather have seen George Lincoln Rockwell [founder of the American Nazi party] on the panel, there would have been a riot.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... n-time-bnp

If you seriously think this man or his party has anything other than technical legitimacy, I seriously question your morality.

My morality is fine thanks, how is yours?

Who is the more violent...... the KKK who kill black people (occassionally) or the current UK government who have sent troops to war in Afghanistan and Iraq yet allow the deaths of millions in Zimbabwe and Congo by a policy of non intervention as there is simply nothing in it for them?

I have no BNP sympathies, I just feel agrieved that the BBC invited an elected representative on then refused the opportunity to hear the policies of that person's party. I was hoping Nick Griffin and his party would be exposed. Instead his past was questioned and his current position was irrelevent

mercsport

On the subject of morality, another piece from Melanie Phillips ( who I normally can't abide when I listen to R4's 'The Moral Maze' ) wrote a cogent piece for the DM ( yes, I know, all the best writers work for the Mail now ) on the reality of new labour's agenda regarding 'multiculturalism'. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ng-us.html

If you hadn't known it before, it's worth a read.

teagar

softlad wrote:

I've often wondered - when people talk about the 'PC brigade' - what or who are they specifically referring to..?? If they are at brigade strength there must be a fair few of them and they sound very organised...

It's time to name and shame these faceless individuals....

I think they're refering to people like me...

teagar

guilliano wrote:

teagar wrote:

guilliano wrote:

Someone said that the BNP have more lies than the other "main" parties....... sorry, but I disagree. The BNP have one lie: "We are not racist". Nothing is ever said about ANYTHING else they stand for outside of their own literature.

The QT was an appalling waste of time and effort. The whole point of it (as has been stated) was to bash Nick Griffin. We heard nothing of BNP policies, just Nick Griffin's opinions and long ago quotes. Where were the questions on ALL parties policies on NHS spending? On expenses? On Education? Immigration was touched on but again we heard nothing on actual policy, just party spin.

I honestly wanted to hear what Nick Griffin had to say on current high profile topics, all I heard was him fending off personal attacks followed by Dimbleby repeating what was said or someone in the crowd/panel shouting over him so I couldn't hear his view or the party line.

I have no interest in hearing the opinion of someone who claims, that a former leader of the KKK was "almost not totally violent", who disputes issues on the existence of the Holocaust as any acclaimed historian understands it.

Nor do I have any interest in hearing the lines from a party who's members felt that Griffin wasn't hard line enough, and said: "I'm starting to think this appealing to the mainstream approach is the wrong direction. I would rather have seen George Lincoln Rockwell [founder of the American Nazi party] on the panel, there would have been a riot.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... n-time-bnp

If you seriously think this man or his party has anything other than technical legitimacy, I seriously question your morality.

My morality is fine thanks, how is yours?

Who is the more violent...... the KKK who kill black people (occassionally) or the current UK government who have sent troops to war in Afghanistan and Iraq yet allow the deaths of millions in Zimbabwe and Congo by a policy of non intervention as there is simply nothing in it for them?

I have no BNP sympathies, I just feel agrieved that the BBC invited an elected representative on then refused the opportunity to hear the policies of that person's party. I was hoping Nick Griffin and his party would be exposed. Instead his past was questioned and his current position was irrelevent

Words. Fail. Me.

teagar

mercsport wrote:

'teagar' and 'sicknote' :
Well, everyone was saying such beastly things about Griffin, I just couldn't believe anyone could be THAT BAD !? Fortunately, he's not yet in a position to make flesh his wilder fancies. Yet, for all his manifest rottenness ( and we all have a bit of the rotter within us), he still cannot compare with the odious Blair ( yes, I'm still forced to draw comparisons, and I suppose, yes, somebody can be THAT BAD- but it's like flogging a dead horse ). It still beggars belief how he got away with it. For so long too. And yet the rascal is being seriously considered for the post of first European president. Truly, should that happen, I will know that 'the system' is corrupt, beyond redemption and that the loons have taken over the asylum.

Upon the points that, so far, I agree with Griffin is the real threat of the Islamification of Europe, the near collapse of Christianity as the defining religion within the UK and, of course, immigration. I'm not aware of his views on political correctness and a host of other concerns that, when I let them, make me mutter 'that's not right'.

Here, a few links plucked from the ether that display a clarity that is beyond my ability to express ( don't mock because a couple of them are from the DM ) : http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5 ... ions.thtml

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... al-UK.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... risis.html[/i]

With regard to the links given...

I honestly find it difficult to see why the multiculturalism article is of much interest. I can guess - the mail fails to believe that any good comes from multiculturalism.
But as far as I can tell from that article, the government had studies that say that the way immigration was working at the time was beneficial for various reasons, and rather than turn it into a big hooha, given the public's ignorance to immigration's benefits and hypersensitivity to its problems, it would just keep it on the down low.

It's fair enough!

I couldn't get onto the other two.

I imagine that's a difference of opinion.

Of course, the fact I wasn't born on this hallowed Island might have something to do with it too .

softlad

teagar wrote:

guilliano wrote:

My morality is fine thanks, how is yours?

Who is the more violent...... the KKK who kill black people (occassionally) or the current UK government who have sent troops to war in Afghanistan and Iraq yet allow the deaths of millions in Zimbabwe and Congo by a policy of non intervention as there is simply nothing in it for them?

I have no BNP sympathies, I just feel agrieved that the BBC invited an elected representative on then refused the opportunity to hear the policies of that person's party. I was hoping Nick Griffin and his party would be exposed. Instead his past was questioned and his current position was irrelevent

Words. Fail. Me.

why..??

I kind of agree with guilliano. Possibly it could have been more sensitively put, but on the whole, I think that about sums up the position of a lot of people who, while having no particular sympathy with the BNP, still feel let down by QT...

Smokin Joe

[quote="teagar
I honestly find it difficult to see why the multiculturalism article is of much interest. I can guess - the mail fails to believe that any good comes from multiculturalism.
But as far as I can tell from that article, the government had studies that say that the way immigration was working at the time was beneficial for various reasons, and rather than turn it into a big hooha, given the public's ignorance to immigration's benefits and hypersensitivity to its problems, it would just keep it on the down low.

It's fair enough!

.[/quote]
What patronising crap!

If anything gets my X against the BNP candidate that sort of thing would be it. The benefits of mass immigration are largely in the heads of those who support it, no one else has seen any evidence. Where else were the government right to "keep it low down" because the population were too stupid to understand?

The fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction, perhaps?

finchy

Smokin Joe wrote:

What patronising crap!

If anything gets my X against the BNP candidate that sort of thing would be it. The benefits of mass immigration are largely in the heads of those who support it, no one else has seen any evidence. Where else were the government right to "keep it low down" because the population were too stupid to understand?

The fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction, perhaps?

Who do you think's been picking your food for the past decade or so, then? I live out in the country, and with a declining youth population in rural areas to do this sort of seasonal work, not to mention supermarkets' purchasing policies and a low local unemployment rate, many of the farmers around here would have been totally and utterly screwed if we didn't have a load of Latvians, Bulgarians or whoever coming to do our dirty work.

finchy

Just to counterbalance that ^^^^, I'm totally opposed to unscrupulous employers who exploit immigrants, or use immigrants to undercut local labour, as happens sometimes, and I hope that the government takes action against it.

I also think that at the current time, we need to make sure that employers are advertising jobs in Britain first, and only if they can't find local employees should they look abroad, and our embassies in Eastern Europe need to work with the governments to inform people that there's no point in coming to Britain for the next couple of years because of increasing unemployment. God, that's a long sentence.

Smokin Joe

johnfinch wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

What patronising crap!

If anything gets my X against the BNP candidate that sort of thing would be it. The benefits of mass immigration are largely in the heads of those who support it, no one else has seen any evidence. Where else were the government right to "keep it low down" because the population were too stupid to understand?

The fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction, perhaps?

Who do you think's been picking your food for the past decade or so, then? I live out in the country, and with a declining youth population in rural areas to do this sort of seasonal work, not to mention supermarkets' purchasing policies and a low local unemployment rate, many of the farmers around here would have been totally and utterly screwed if we didn't have a load of Latvians, Bulgarians or whoever coming to do our dirty work.

Pay a rate that makes it worthwhile and you will get people to do the work.

Or are you in favour of bringing in immigrants who work for next to nothing in order to keep wages down?

Garry H

Smokin Joe wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

What patronising crap!

If anything gets my X against the BNP candidate that sort of thing would be it. The benefits of mass immigration are largely in the heads of those who support it, no one else has seen any evidence. Where else were the government right to "keep it low down" because the population were too stupid to understand?

The fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction, perhaps?

Who do you think's been picking your food for the past decade or so, then? I live out in the country, and with a declining youth population in rural areas to do this sort of seasonal work, not to mention supermarkets' purchasing policies and a low local unemployment rate, many of the farmers around here would have been totally and utterly screwed if we didn't have a load of Latvians, Bulgarians or whoever coming to do our dirty work.

Pay a rate that makes it worthwhile and you will get people to do the work.

Or are you in favour of bringing in immigrants who work for next to nothing in order to keep wages down?

Because supermarkets' purchasing policies don't leave much in the way of flexibility when it comes to doshing out wages, and the offer of minimum wage won't attract the non-immigrant population?

finchy

Smokin Joe wrote:

Pay a rate that makes it worthwhile and you will get people to do the work.

Or are you in favour of bringing in immigrants who work for next to nothing in order to keep wages down?

As I said in the following post, no I don't agree with the use of immigrant labour just to keep costs down. However, as Garry H says, farmers have to sell to supermarkets, who can dictate prices, as well as having to compete with foreign farmers. This, added to the facts pointed out in my first post (low unemployment rates in many rural areas and a shrinking rural youth population), makes the wage issue a very difficult one to deal with.

Let's be honest here, people expect cheap food, but resent the cheap workers brought in to do it.

Coming back to what you said about there being no benefits to mass immigration, it isn't just badly-paid, low status jobs. One in two new teachers in the UK quite within a few years of qualifying. Again, I don't want to see immigrant workers being brought in to paper over the cracks, and would much prefer to see the government make teaching a more attractive profession to go into and stay in. Unfortunately, that's not been the case until the recession, so schools have been forced to look elsewhere for teachers. It's a crap situation, but what else could have been done in the circumstances?

Smokin Joe

We would not have been short of teachers, dentists, farm workers or any other profession without mass immigration. Wages and training would have dictated the need for whatever levels were nescessary to ensure the correct employment levels in those jobs were met. They would have had to.

In any case, the influx of teachers from abroad is probably nowhere near enough to cover the number of immigrants in the school system, let alone the indigenous population. When is immigration actually going to stop, when the whole country is one giant urban sprawl like london?

It is high time that we said enough is enough and a cap put on it. The revelations of former Downing Street speechwriter Andrew Neather that Blair and Brown allowed an mass iflux of immigrants to "Drown the right in a sea of diversity and rub the Tories noses in it" is disgusting enough, but the fact they concealed what they were doing because they knew the outcry it would bring is dispicable.

If anyone wonders why the BNP are now an electoral threat, look no further.

teagar

Smokin Joe wrote:

teagar wrote:

I honestly find it difficult to see why the multiculturalism article is of much interest. I can guess - the mail fails to believe that any good comes from multiculturalism.
But as far as I can tell from that article, the government had studies that say that the way immigration was working at the time was beneficial for various reasons, and rather than turn it into a big hooha, given the public's ignorance to immigration's benefits and hypersensitivity to its problems, it would just keep it on the down low.

It's fair enough!

.

What patronising crap!

If anything gets my X against the BNP candidate that sort of thing would be it. The benefits of mass immigration are largely in the heads of those who support it, no one else has seen any evidence. Where else were the government right to "keep it low down" because the population were too stupid to understand?

The fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction, perhaps?

You don't have to be stupid to be ignorant.

It's quite easy to argue many smokers are ignorant of the health risks. Hence the government curb on it.

teagar

Smokin Joe wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

What patronising crap!

If anything gets my X against the BNP candidate that sort of thing would be it. The benefits of mass immigration are largely in the heads of those who support it, no one else has seen any evidence. Where else were the government right to "keep it low down" because the population were too stupid to understand?

The fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction, perhaps?

Who do you think's been picking your food for the past decade or so, then? I live out in the country, and with a declining youth population in rural areas to do this sort of seasonal work, not to mention supermarkets' purchasing policies and a low local unemployment rate, many of the farmers around here would have been totally and utterly screwed if we didn't have a load of Latvians, Bulgarians or whoever coming to do our dirty work.

Pay a rate that makes it worthwhile and you will get people to do the work.

Or are you in favour of bringing in immigrants who work for next to nothing in order to keep wages down?

I take it you're not very familiar with the gains of free movement of labour and capital?

Jez mon

Smokin Joe wrote:

We would not have been short of teachers, dentists, farm workers or any other profession without mass immigration. Wages and training would have dictated the need for whatever levels were nescessary to ensure the correct employment levels in those jobs were met. They would have had to.

Really? Perhaps with the teaching and dentistry, but without cheap farm workers, I should imagine that most supermarkets would have simply looked abroad for even more produce. Sure some farms would have been kept alive due to a few who were ready to pay more in order to buy British, but lots farmers would have gone under due to being undercut by foreign farmers who were able to get cheaper labour. It's a similar thing with what little large scale manufacturing we have left in this country.

Should there have been closer controls on immigration, yes. Does this give anyone with half a brain an excuse to vote for a racist homophobic party who would be totally useless if they ever got into power, no.

Frank the tank

Garry H wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

What patronising crap!

If anything gets my X against the BNP candidate that sort of thing would be it. The benefits of mass immigration are largely in the heads of those who support it, no one else has seen any evidence. Where else were the government right to "keep it low down" because the population were too stupid to understand?

The fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction, perhaps?

Who do you think's been picking your food for the past decade or so, then? I live out in the country, and with a declining youth population in rural areas to do this sort of seasonal work, not to mention supermarkets' purchasing policies and a low local unemployment rate, many of the farmers around here would have been totally and utterly screwed if we didn't have a load of Latvians, Bulgarians or whoever coming to do our dirty work.

Pay a rate that makes it worthwhile and you will get people to do the work.

Or are you in favour of bringing in immigrants who work for next to nothing in order to keep wages down?

Because supermarkets' purchasing policies don't leave much in the way of flexibility when it comes to doshing out wages, and the offer of minimum wage won't attract the non-immigrant population?

I believe govenmental pressure should be brought to bear on the supermarkets to pay farmers a decent price for their produce, instead of screwing them down to pennies for their crops.

I saw a programme in which a farmer was having to sell a lettuce to tesco at less than a penny each. They're on sale in there for about 70p each (not a bad mark up). Then there is the chicken issue whereby farmers get less than 50p for a mass farmed "chicken".

Those are just two examples of the big lads putting the boot in. If farming in this country is to carry on it must be allowed to be a profitable industry otherwise we'll end up with no farmers. Then we'll end up being totally dependent on imported food stuffs, crikey me, you only have to look at the price of your gas/electricity to see what that reality brings.

Foreign workers be damned, it's a far bigger issue than the cost of the labour picking our turnips if the big supermarkets carry on how they are doing, with the governments blessing, there won't be any bloody turnips to pick.

Smokin Joe

Jez mon wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

We would not have been short of teachers, dentists, farm workers or any other profession without mass immigration. Wages and training would have dictated the need for whatever levels were nescessary to ensure the correct employment levels in those jobs were met. They would have had to.

Really? Perhaps with the teaching and dentistry, but without cheap farm workers, I should imagine that most supermarkets would have simply looked abroad for even more produce. Sure some farms would have been kept alive due to a few who were ready to pay more in order to buy British, but lots farmers would have gone under due to being undercut by foreign farmers who were able to get cheaper labour. It's a similar thing with what little large scale manufacturing we have left in this country.

Should there have been closer controls on immigration, yes. Does this give anyone with half a brain an excuse to vote for a racist homophobic party who would be totally useless if they ever got into power, no.

The BNP will never gain power in this country, their range of views are too unpalatably for the vast majority of the electorate. But if governments of both main parties continue to ignore the immigration issue, then getting a BNP MP or two might shake them up enough to confront the issue

guilliano

The real problem we have at the moment is not the likes of the BNP getting a couple of seats in a pointless, costly parliament. It's the fact that our elected MPs don't listen to the people they represent any more. Their role is defined as a representative of the party, not of the people and as such they all seem to spout the latest party line of spin on every issue. If MPs actually voiced the concerns of the people that employ them then there would be a massive change of policy by everyone. While the people continue to be ignored and the cash-cow of large companies is the be all and end all for all prospective governments people like Nick Griffin will continue to be the vulture picking at the carcass and surviving on the scraps that are left behind by the main parties. These scraps will get bigger and bigger as the wealth is controlled by a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

finchy

Smokin Joe wrote:

We would not have been short of teachers, dentists, farm workers or any other profession without mass immigration. Wages and training would have dictated the need for whatever levels were nescessary to ensure the correct employment levels in those jobs were met. They would have had to.

The shortage of workers in these vital professions has been going on since longer than mass immigration. Probably, in the long run, wages and conditions in teaching would have come up to ensure that teachers could be retained, but what should we do until then?

As for dentists, have you seen how much they earn? Pay is definitely not a problem in that job. For seasonal work, such as harvesting or farming, forget it, they're industries with very healthy foreign competition, and short-term work like this will, unfortunately, always be badly paid. I don't like it, but unless people are prepared to pay more, what can be done?

Smokin Joe wrote:

In any case, the influx of teachers from abroad is probably nowhere near enough to cover the number of immigrants in the school system, let alone the indigenous population. When is immigration actually going to stop, when the whole country is one giant urban sprawl like london?

By law, a class is limited to 30 pupils/class. So for what you say to be true, it means that about 30x as many immigrant children than teachers would have to be in our school system. I don't know the ratio of immigrant children to teachers. Do you?

As I have said elsewhere on this subject, I don't want to see the population massively boosted by immigrants. I hate the destruction of our countryside, but then as I have alse said elsewhere, how exactly are we going to pay for our ageing population?

We've got this situation now, where future generations have been handed hundreds of billions of pounds of debt to pay off, the number of workers per pensioner is going to fall (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7773035.stm), and oil prices are going to keep on rising, meaning the cost of living will go up as well. We will need workers.

To say let's stop migration would be very much cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

Frank the tank

Just to play devils advocate. At what figure does the tipping point come when this small island has accomodated enough migrants. 70,000,000 80,000,000 a hundred million, two hundred million. Where will it end.

The more of this thread I read the more convinced I was right in my OP and that was ordinary people feel they're being let down and dis-enfranchised by the three main parties and this is ONE of the reasons the BNP are gaining votes

finchy

Frank the tank wrote:

Just to play devils advocate. At what figure does the tipping point come when this small island has accomodated enough migrants. 70,000,000 80,000,000 a hundred million, two hundred million. Where will it end.

The more of this thread I read the more convinced I was right in my OP and that was ordinary people feel they're being let down and dis-enfranchised by the three main parties and this is ONE of the reasons the BNP are gaining votes

Don't know. There is no simple solution, unfortunately. Pity really, as I like simple solutions.

I saw an article on this subject recently, which reckons that the population pyramid will start to get restored to a more healthy balance in about the 2040s or 2050s, once the babyboomer generation start to pop their clogs. Until then, we're going the way of the Germans and Italians, with an increasingly elderly population.

Maybe there is no workable solution, damned if we do, damned if we don't - you know, if we let the migrants in, it will be a massive strain on the infrastructure, if we don't let them in, we probably won't be able to afford/staff our infrastructure.

We're all doomed.

Smokin Joe

The problem with bringing immigrants in to pay the pensions of an aging population is that those immigrants will themselves grow old. What do we do then, keep bringing in more and more till we are bursting at the seams?

We will just have to face the fact that as we live longer we will have to work for longer.

finchy

Smokin Joe wrote:

The problem with bringing immigrants in to pay the pensions of an aging population is that those immigrants will themselves grow old. What do we do then, keep bringing in more and more till we are bursting at the seams?

We will just have to face the fact that as we live longer we will have to work for longer.

Well, probably a lot of them won't want to stay for longer than a few years - it's not easy being away from your family, and as oil gets more expensive they won't be able to go home as often.

I travel a lot to Eastern Europe, and I can tell you that the numbers of people coming to England has fallen dramatically, whereas there are a hell of a lot of people returning home. Airlines are cancelling routes out there, SkyEurope (Eastern Europe's biggest budget airline) is in serious trouble, the number of coaches going between the UK and places like Poland, Slovakia and Czech Republic has gone down, and they can't even fill the remaining ones up any more like they used to.

The pound is worth a lot less to foreign workers now. Just a few years ago it would get you 50 Czech crowns, 400 Hungarian forints or 70 Slovak crowns. Now it will get you 30 Czech crowns, about 290 forints and when Slovakia switched over to the euro the pound was only worth 30 crowns. I don't know about Poland, but my mate who works out there tells me it's a similar situation. With improving living standards over there, the UK is suddenly a much less attractive destination for long term living, and you can really notice it in my nearest town. Whereas a couple of years ago you could hear Slavic languages everywhere, these days I'll hear them being spoken maybe a few times a day, although the number of Hungarians has gone up slightly.

Hopefully all of this will mean that employers will be less able to exploit foreigners, and the threat of undercutting local labour with immigrants will be less realistic and British workers will be able to demand better conditions. I won't hold my breath though.

OffTheBackAdam

Just be pleased that we don't have Proportional Representation as an electoral system.