Farage unravels on LBC.

simonhead

Quite enjoying the twitter feck up of #whyimvotingukip some hilarious quotes.

adamfo

England has not always been highly populated. The early census shows us the population increased 50% since 1911 and a high 7% between the 2001-2011 censuses. The Government ONS website says around 55 per cent of the increase in population between 2001 and 2011 was the result of net migration.

Now lets go the planet Tharg where they enjoy school maths. The little green Thargians make up 90% of the population and have a fertility rate of 1.5 ( bellow replacement). The red Thargians have a fertility rate of 4 and make up 10% of the population. A new generation is produced every 25 years. With exponential growth how long would it take for the Reds,if they wanted to, to democratically vote in Red law IE. for them to comprise 50.01 % of the population ?

wongataa

Mr Goo wrote:

wongataa wrote:

Male children are more highly prized in India (not majority Muslim), China (not majority Muslim by an ever bigger margin an indeed there will be problems in China as men outnumber women now.), and many other places. Again, it is a cultural issue. Males have traditionally been the main breadwinners of families so when parents would like their offspring to do well and have good prospects many in certain areas of the world would prefer boys. Over time things have changed in the more liberal western world but going back a few hundred years in Europe you would probably find the same preference.

A cultural thing yes. That has reared its head in 21st century Britain, due to the influx and growing muslim population. The Home Office recognise it as a problem, as many young teenage muslim girls do not return to school after the summer holidays. They are whisked off to Pakistan to become slaves to the family in which they are married into.
You cannot compare it to what happened on these shores over 500 years ago. The current year is 2014. Men have walled on the moon. We have mapped the human gene. We can replace the human heart. The only comparison to be made, is that the mentality and culture of Islam is Medieval.

Yes it is bad but you can't say it is just a Muslim problem. It is a problem in many places with many religious views.

MisterMuncher

adamfo wrote:

England has not always been highly populated. The early census shows us the population increased 50% since 1911 and a high 7% between the 2001-2011 censuses. The Government ONS website says around 55 per cent of the increase in population between 2001 and 2011 was the result of net migration.

Now lets go the planet Tharg where they enjoy school maths. The little green Thargians make up 90% of the population and have a fertility rate of 1.5 ( bellow replacement). The red Thargians have a fertility rate of 4 and make up 10% of the population. A new generation is produced every 25 years. With exponential growth how long would it take for the Reds,if they wanted to, to democratically vote in Red law IE. for them to comprise 50.01 % of the population ?

Assumes constant birth rate going forward, ignores all external factors. An argument made since 1922 about Catholics in Northern Ireland, who started at 40% of the population and had a higher birth rate. Still don't constitute a majority, birth rates tended to fall as a product of increased affluence.

Then, of course, the whole argument rests on the idea that all Muslims are in on this Sharia-by-demographics scheme, for which there's absolutely bugger all evidence.

rick_chasey

adamfo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Since when was the Netherlands or Belgium a micro state?

And I'm not entirely sure you've looked at birth rates in any great detail or how they work.

Given roughly 80% of the UK is still classified as 'white' chat like yours is just far right scaremongering.

Who said the Netherlands or Belgium are micro states ? The population density of England overtook the Netherlands, previously the most densely populated country in Europe, a few years back. A micro state would be a Principality like Monaco.
I've got a degree in Economics and generally have middle of the road politics. What have I written about demographic trends that is incorrect ? Trying to dismiss or close down debate with words like 'scaremongering' or inferring racism is poor form.

Belgium & Netherlands is more densely populated than the UK. That's fairly obvious.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o ... on_density

http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/popula ... nsityh.htm

Using the population of England on its own is a bit misleading, given the anachronism that is London which makes up as much as 1 in 6 or 1 in 7 of the entire population. If you've ever been to the Netherlands for example, you'd see what I mean by density being a bit of an issue - in that there's so little undeveloped land. There's a lot of that in the UK.

The way you've extrapolated the birth rates of immigrants also is just so full of assumptions it's about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

A bike forum isn't the best place to argue the point and start arguing facts. After all, you can prove anything with facts , especially when it's to do with politics.

--

My issue with UKIP isn't even the 'racist' brand that everyone seems to be using. Was reading a poll today that 40% of people don't believe UKIP are and that they're just represented commonly held beliefs. Now, in my view, those beliefs probably are but you can't really hold it against a party if they're articulating a commonly held belief. There's a big cultural issue to be addressed, but shouting at UKIP isn't going to do it.

My issue with UKIP is just how fundamentally unprofessional they are, and what impact that has on Britain on an international scale. Time and again we see that their pretty far right brand of politics has attracted a bunch of loose lipped morons and idiots who come out with the most inappropriate and rather worrying views and statements.

The only vaguely professional person in the whole gaff is Farage himself, and his performances in Brussels and Strasbourg in the past 5 years are just depressingly embarrassing. Shouting at the president von Rompy, just throwing personal insults at him doesn't do anything other than hurt the UK.That's not politics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBGKoB6TjBM

Indeed, having a whole bunch of separatists who are happy to chum up with distinctly more worrying far right groups in the EU parliament, which UKIP are, has a much bigger ripple effect than his views on smoking in pubs or the LBC interview. They know no-one pays attention to what happens there (as Farge so regularly likes to point out), so them cutting deals with far right neo-nazi organisations won't get them noticed and will get them nearer towards their aim.

That's the issue with them.

That and I just think far right politics is borderline inhumane, but that's just a personal opinion.

pinno

Mr Goo wrote:

Pina..100

You are quite obviously an advocate of Islam and see no problem with its practices and culture pervading UK society. Could you please square the circle for me on how the following have a place in modern Britain.

No I am not an advocate of Islam. I cannot criticise a religion which interpreted by the majority is benign.
The idea of creationalism by the Latter day saints and other Christian sects is as threatening to the human race as fundamentalist Islamists in that the world has been put here by God for our {ab}use. When you consider that apart from B Obama, the bible bashing Americans predominantly in the South have been responsible for returning every single American president, their influence globally is enormous.
I do have a problem with Islamists who want Sharia law in the UK in the same way as I despise the Catholic Church who actively discourage the use of contraception in areas where there is extreme poverty.
So the 11 questions you put to me under an assumption are therefore eroneous.

On a philosophical level...Maybe the masses need the virtues set and delivered by a god. Maybe the break down of society in parts of the "decadent" west is because the masses have yet to form a more sophisticated morality not based on a higher being.

I am non-religious Mr Goo. What I have noticed though is that you have mixed up an eclectic cocktail of arguments that hold little water, just to support your unfounded extremism.

By acting coercively and alienating various ethnic groups in the UK, they are less likely to want to become more British and adopt our culture and more likely to resent their host.

nathancom

Goo is clearly racist.

Jez mon

Didn't the whole halal meat thing turn out to be a bit of nothing in the end, ie the vast majority of the meat was stunned before being killed, the only difference being that the animal had someone whispering to an imaginary friend as the throat was cut?

Anyway, what does Islam have to do with UKIP?

As a more general note, I'm surprised that Farage has been able to keep it together for quite so long. He represents a party whose sole reason for being does not stack up when given a full thorough examination...

finchy

Jez mon wrote:

Didn't the whole halal meat thing turn out to be a bit of nothing in the end, ie the vast majority of the meat was stunned before being killed.

Al-Guardian (an increasingly tedious read) reported that 90% of animals were stunned in several of their "isn't everyone racist except us" articles. Which means that 10% weren't. The only acceptable number is 0%.

adamfo

Rick Chasey wrote:

Belgium & Netherlands is more densely populated than the UK. That's fairly obvious.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o ... on_density



Using the population of England on its own is a bit misleading, given the anachronism that is London which makes up as much as 1 in 6 or 1 in 7 of the entire population.

That Wiki link backs up what I originally said about the population density of England. It's bemusing so many people living in England are unaware of the facts and the threats to the English countryside of a rising population. At least 3.7 million extra people between 2001-2011.The figure up to 2013 is almost as many people as live in New Zealand.
Scotland may shortly become independent. The population density figure of the UK would jump dramatically if it did.
Since 2001 London has gained more than 850,000 residents (a 12 per cent rise) and now has a population of over 8 million. Lack of school places, rising house prices and the cleansing of affordable housing for working people is not exactly a desirable situation.

rick_chasey

Why is rising numbers a 'threat'?

Threat to what precisely?

If you have more people, the more people will be working (presumably since the vast majority of EU immigrants are economic immigrants and if you're from outside the EU it's even harder to move without a job) then they'll contribute enough to be able to build more houses, schools etc etc.


I don't buy the argument that rising populations is necessarily bad.

What the EU has always been about is free movement of capital and labour.

Western European nations typically have excessive capital and labour shortages; Eastern the opposite.

So capital flows out of the west into the east and labour vica versa. Everyone wins. We pay less for labour they get the capital they need. What's not to like about that? Free markets actually doing something useful.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

Time and again we see that their pretty far right brand of politics has attracted a bunch of loose lipped morons and idiots who come out with the most inappropriate and rather worrying views and statements.

Not sure if it's appropriate for a mod to talk like that about forum posters ;-)

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is rising numbers a 'threat'?

Threat to what precisely?

If you have more people, the more people will be working (presumably since the vast majority of EU immigrants are economic immigrants and if you're from outside the EU it's even harder to move without a job) then they'll contribute enough to be able to build more houses, schools etc etc.


I don't buy the argument that rising populations is necessarily bad.

What the EU has always been about is free movement of capital and labour.

Western European nations typically have excessive capital and labour shortages; Eastern the opposite.

So capital flows out of the west into the east and labour vica versa. Everyone wins. We pay less for labour they get the capital they need. What's not to like about that? Free markets actually doing something useful.

I think that argument works ish, from a national perspective. If you're working in one of the industries with a labour shortage otoh, an influx of cheaper labour is going to harm your bottom line. And yes, the population thing does take care of itself to an extent, more people In the system means more money means more infrastructure...but this inevitably lags behind to some extent, so quick population growth does posses a risk.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is rising numbers a 'threat'?

Threat to what precisely?

If you have more people, the more people will be working (presumably since the vast majority of EU immigrants are economic immigrants and if you're from outside the EU it's even harder to move without a job) then they'll contribute enough to be able to build more houses, schools etc etc.


I don't buy the argument that rising populations is necessarily bad.

What the EU has always been about is free movement of capital and labour.

Western European nations typically have excessive capital and labour shortages; Eastern the opposite.

So capital flows out of the west into the east and labour vica versa. Everyone wins. We pay less for labour they get the capital they need. What's not to like about that? Free markets actually doing something useful.

Although I'm not anti-immigration, I don't think it's sensible to just dismiss the idea that rapid population growth will bring about certain problems (whether that growth is driven by immigration or native demographics). A higher population will mean more cars on the road, more crowded housing, less green space, etc.

ballysmate

An interesting addition to any manifesto.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... blems.html

Ben6899

This thread is depressing. I'm afraid the well-reasoned, balanced POVs will never make up for the bile spouted by the minority.

Lookyhere

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is rising numbers a 'threat'?

Threat to what precisely?

If you have more people, the more people will be working (presumably since the vast majority of EU immigrants are economic immigrants and if you're from outside the EU it's even harder to move without a job) then they'll contribute enough to be able to build more houses, schools etc etc.


I don't buy the argument that rising populations is necessarily bad.

What the EU has always been about is free movement of capital and labour.

Western European nations typically have excessive capital and labour shortages; Eastern the opposite.

So capital flows out of the west into the east and labour vica versa. Everyone wins. We pay less for labour they get the capital they need. What's not to like about that? Free markets actually doing something useful.

Rising population? maybe you have an argument but dramatic population growth could lead to social upheaval, unplanned destruction of the environment, look at the issues over flooding due to poor planning rushed through.
We pay less for labour? that's great, more poorly paid people getting ripped off by landlords and/or claiming working benefits in order to live - I don't think you ve thought through your argument.

mr_goo

This will be my last post on this thread (thank the lord you all say).

The expansion of the EU, which has led to the rise in Eastern Europeans migrating across to Germany, Italy, UK etc cannot be sustained and is entirely ill thought. The argument for additional labour to fill the jobs that the 'indigenous' population will not do, again will impact on in a negative way; depressed wages, increase in benefits payments, higher demand on the NHS, increased demand for school spaces etc etc.
My wife is an NHS employee and this year is seeing a big increase in Eastern Europeans registering (they were actually leaving during the recession). They are entitled to free care from the get go. Some are arriving in the UK purely to treat major medical conditions which they cannot get treated in their own countries. They are entitled to free prescriptions if they qualify. The cost for those that don't (possibly the majority on this forum) has increased twice already this year and is now over £8.

Someone once told me that the cost of civilisation is great and I must be grateful to live in such a great country. Which I am. And it is little wonder that millions of people would want to live here. However the fast and large immigration to the UK could herald the end of what was once great.

I will leave you with one little story. On the 1st of January this year Romanian and Bulgarian nationals were entitled to enter the UK without restriction. Radio 5 Live spent the morning at Stanstead Airport interviewing the first arrivals. They collared a young Romanian chap fresh off the first flight from Bucharest. Was he an architect? NO. Was he a doctor, coming to work in A&E at a city hospital? NO. Perhaps he was a mechanical engineer come to fill the massive skills shortage in our building industry? NO.

Why have you come to the UK? 'I come to wash cars'.

ddraver

so?

The question you need to answer is why can someone who's english is rudimentary, has limited qualifications and has no realistic future of any progression (all of which are massive assumptions on my part but I suspect that Goo would nt have picked an intelligent foreigner) get a job over a native english speaker and who had full time education to pass GCSEs?

MountainMonster

ddraver wrote:

so?

The question you need to answer is why can someone who's english is rudimentary, has limited qualifications and has no realistic future of any progression (all of which are massive assumptions on my part but I suspect that Goo would nt have picked an intelligent foreigner) get a job over a native english speaker and who had full time education to pass GCSEs?

He probably won't answer because the answer is one he won't want to say. British people will not wash cars for a living. Simple as!

pinno

Mr Goo wrote:

This will be my last post on this thread (thank the lord you all say).

The expansion of the EU, which has led to the rise in Eastern Europeans migrating across to Germany, Italy, UK etc cannot be sustained and is entirely ill thought. The argument for additional labour to fill the jobs that the 'indigenous' population will not do, again will impact on in a negative way; depressed wages, increase in benefits payments, higher demand on the NHS, increased demand for school spaces etc etc.
My wife is an NHS employee and this year is seeing a big increase in Eastern Europeans registering (they were actually leaving during the recession). They are entitled to free care from the get go. Some are arriving in the UK purely to treat major medical conditions which they cannot get treated in their own countries. They are entitled to free prescriptions if they qualify. The cost for those that don't (possibly the majority on this forum) has increased twice already this year and is now over £8.

Someone once told me that the cost of civilisation is great and I must be grateful to live in such a great country. Which I am. And it is little wonder that millions of people would want to live here. However the fast and large immigration to the UK could herald the end of what was once great.

I will leave you with one little story. On the 1st of January this year Romanian and Bulgarian nationals were entitled to enter the UK without restriction. Radio 5 Live spent the morning at Stanstead Airport interviewing the first arrivals. They collared a young Romanian chap fresh off the first flight from Bucharest. Was he an architect? NO. Was he a doctor, coming to work in A&E at a city hospital? NO. Perhaps he was a mechanical engineer come to fill the massive skills shortage in our building industry? NO.

Why have you come to the UK? 'I come to wash cars'.

Really?!? In the 1930's perhaps when the empire was at it's peak. We haven't been 'great' for a long time.

I presume that this is your last post because you dare not risk having your shallow ideas contradicted?

adamfo

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is rising numbers a 'threat'?

Threat to what precisely?

.

The countryside. For example, most small towns are ringed by greenfield sites now owned by developers. Planning laws have stopped England turning into a horrible urban sprawl like Holland but the pressure to gain planning permission clearly increases with population increases.

nathancom

pinarello001 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

This will be my last post on this thread (thank the lord you all say).

The expansion of the EU, which has led to the rise in Eastern Europeans migrating across to Germany, Italy, UK etc cannot be sustained and is entirely ill thought. The argument for additional labour to fill the jobs that the 'indigenous' population will not do, again will impact on in a negative way; depressed wages, increase in benefits payments, higher demand on the NHS, increased demand for school spaces etc etc.
My wife is an NHS employee and this year is seeing a big increase in Eastern Europeans registering (they were actually leaving during the recession). They are entitled to free care from the get go. Some are arriving in the UK purely to treat major medical conditions which they cannot get treated in their own countries. They are entitled to free prescriptions if they qualify. The cost for those that don't (possibly the majority on this forum) has increased twice already this year and is now over £8.

Someone once told me that the cost of civilisation is great and I must be grateful to live in such a great country. Which I am. And it is little wonder that millions of people would want to live here. However the fast and large immigration to the UK could herald the end of what was once great.

I will leave you with one little story. On the 1st of January this year Romanian and Bulgarian nationals were entitled to enter the UK without restriction. Radio 5 Live spent the morning at Stanstead Airport interviewing the first arrivals. They collared a young Romanian chap fresh off the first flight from Bucharest. Was he an architect? NO. Was he a doctor, coming to work in A&E at a city hospital? NO. Perhaps he was a mechanical engineer come to fill the massive skills shortage in our building industry? NO.

Why have you come to the UK? 'I come to wash cars'.

Really?!? In the 1930's perhaps when the empire was at it's peak. We haven't been 'great' for a long time.

I presume that this is your last post because you dare not risk having your shallow ideas contradicted?

And by 'great' he must mean good at subjugating and exploiting other people as worthless native types.

Racists are just scared people; scared of their own powerlessness, scared of the idea of others surpassing them, scared of the world changing. That is their problem because the world doesn't stand still for anyone and it will continue to change.

finchy

ddraver wrote:

so?

The question you need to answer is why can someone who's english is rudimentary, has limited qualifications and has no realistic future of any progression (all of which are massive assumptions on my part but I suspect that Goo would nt have picked an intelligent foreigner) get a job over a native english speaker and who had full time education to pass GCSEs?

Sometimes it's because they put up with more crap. I know a lot of immigrants (my wife is one), and those that work for employers who mainly take on immigrant labour often complain about the treatment they get at work. Others, who work for employers who are genuinely equal opportunities don't have the same problem.

rick_chasey

Looks like no-one paid any attention.

UKIP have out performed predictions which were already high in local council elections.

Likely got a bit of boost for having them at the same time as the EU elections but still pretty depressing.

sungod

bleagh, depressing indeed

voter apathy is dangerous, it leaves the door open for the fascist rabble rousers adept at stirring up their followers, an old and sadly effective technique

finchy

Here's the thought processes of the main political parties and the media:

"I know, let's expose UKIP as a bunch of racists. That'll stop all those xenophobes voting for them." :roll: :roll: :roll:

ballysmate

johnfinch wrote:

Here's the thought processes of the main political parties and the media:

"I know, let's expose UKIP as a bunch of racists. That'll stop all those xenophobes voting for them." :roll: :roll: :roll:

OR

"I know, let's brand anyone who raises the issue of immigration as being a racist, whether they have a legitimate point or not. Let's not bother looking at people's concerns or bother reassuring them that immigration is under control"

Like it or not, immigration is top of the agenda for a lot of folk in this country, rightly or wrongly, and the main parties have done nothing to address peoples concerns.
Is it any wonder that people eventually turn to the only party that pays them any notice?

BTW I didn't vote UKIP. Not the party for me.

finchy

^^^

My point is that the main parties and media are so out of touch that they don't see that portraying an anti-immigration party is racist isn't actually going to damage that party.

It's like the Question Time episode when they spent 45 minutes discussing whether or not the BNP are racist. Course they're racist, that's why people were voting for them!

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Likely got a bit of boost for having them at the same time as the EU elections but still pretty depressing.

What's the problem? We live in a democracy. It's time that weak minded bigots got some representation............