I am a Liberal...

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah the joys of FPTP.

I've seen recent opinion polls showing that the Greens and UKIP might get about 20% of the vote at the next election. So if these figures hold up, 20% of the people will be represented by about 0.5% of MPs. :roll:

Yup.

Lib dems got a comfortable 25% last year FWIW - compared to the Tory 36% IIRC.

rick_chasey

MisterMuncher wrote:

Critical thinking is a key skill but it just doesn't get taught. .

Really?

That was the main focus of my GCSEs and that was 10 years ago.

MisterMuncher

As stated, the push under Gove was for rote learning and recitation. A major step backwards.

rick_chasey

MisterMuncher wrote:

As stated, the push under Gove was for rote learning and recitation. A major step backwards.

I don't think it's either or. I'm not a fan of gove particularly nor do I think education was better 20 years ago (I genuinely think overall quality of general education has improved) but we do regularly hear that compared to other European nations UK education leavers don't necessarily have the right skills to be useful to industry so some reform is necessary.

Ultimately the problem with education is it's so ideological. Most criticism broadly boils to ideological differences, which is not much use.

I'm not enormously enamoured by the free school idea - too exclusive for me - but I like the idea of giving schools some agency to decide their curriculum to adapt to local needs and wants.

Generally in the UK education is even tougher to change/get some practical change in because it's so embedded to the class system - only in the UK do you get news articles about 70yr olds which still reference where they went to school.

ai_1

Debeli wrote:

.....But here is the issue... My dear spouse is (I think) a Labour supporter. We live in a strong Tory area. Both our votes have gone to losers for many years. She now fears a UKIP vote sufficiently seriously to consider voting Tory.... I am suffering some sort of knee-jerk reaction to the thought and at present I'm determined to 'waste' my vote on the LibDem candidate.

I imagine that UKIP may be the only serious challenger to the Tories in our constituency, and I can live with a Tory MP much more comfortsably than I can with UKIP. What to do?

Ideas on a postcard please, but do remember that the Internet is filling up and we have to leave some space.

Here's the problem. People keep voting "strategically" based on how they expect the different candidates and parties to do rather than simply voting for who they actually want. I believe this along with a pathetic fear of change is what makes 2 party systems full of cynical politicians a fixture in most Western countries. We'', on second thoughts I don't know the political situation in most western countries so lets just say several.

RDW

Ai_1 wrote:

Here's the problem. People keep voting "strategically" based on how they expect the different candidates and parties to do rather than simply voting for who they actually want.

Perhaps this will be less of an issue in 2015, when the choice is between Labour, the Tories, the Tories' Little Helpers, and the Tories with Extra Xenophobia (like the BBC debate, I'm not including the Greens or the Celtic Nationalists). I can't see many left-leaning voters tactically voting LibDem this time around.

CHRISNOIR

Ballysmate wrote:

It would appear that your stance on immigration is closely allied to mine. ie we should have control of our own borders. (Oops stepping into UKIP territory here)

As a leftie I'm contractually obliged to shreik 'RACIST' here.

Bit disappointed my fellow lefties waited this long - come on comrades, up your game...

mamba80

CHRISNOIR wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

It would appear that your stance on immigration is closely allied to mine. ie we should have control of our own borders. (Oops stepping into UKIP territory here)

As a leftie I'm contractually obliged to shreik 'RACIST' here.

Bit disappointed my fellow lefties waited this long - come on comrades, up your game...

I hope you are joking? but if your not...... Uncontrolled immigration effects the very communities and areas that are most at need of support and help and which then don't get it.
Large influxes of migrants tend not to move to affluent or rural areas, these people are open to exploitation, low wages, poor health and education, the very things that Nye Bevan was trying to consign to the bin of history.
there is zero racism here, its common sense.

rick_chasey

mamba80 wrote:

Large influxes of migrants tend not to move to affluent or rural areas, .

Ironic isn't it that all the places UKIP does well are rural areas with low immigration?

It's almost like, if you live next door to immigrants, you realise they're not all that different to you.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Large influxes of migrants tend not to move to affluent or rural areas, .

Ironic isn't it that all the places UKIP does well are rural areas with low immigration?

It's almost like, if you live next door to immigrants, you realise they're not all that different to you.

Are you sure?

http://www.ukip.org/local_election_results_full

Look at the votes attracted.

rick_chasey

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 59499.html

http://www.cityam.com/1414419679/ukip,- ... immigrants

Pretty sure yeah.

ballysmate

The link to the local election results shows a solid support. Those areas are not leafy shires.

rick_chasey

data representation begs to differ.

Given the report published used the same data you just linked, I'll back them, rather than some weirdo on the internet .

ballysmate

Wierdo? :?

finchy

You've got a man's hand stuck up your arse.

ballysmate

johnfinch wrote:

You've got a man's hand stuck up your ars*.

I suppose that would make me wierdo.

Mind you, not in all circles. :shock:

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Large influxes of migrants tend not to move to affluent or rural areas, .

Ironic isn't it that all the places UKIP does well are rural areas with low immigration?

It's almost like, if you live next door to immigrants, you realise they're not all that different to you.

Why? do you think they are or used too?
the point I was trying to make and obviously failing, with you, is that there is little point in mass migration and then creating ghettos, where unemployment, crime and poverty are endemic and alienating existing migrant communities and/or the indigenous population... who does that benefit? certainly not the migrants or do you think that the way immigration in Western Europe has been handled in the 30 years is a resounding success?

mr_goo

Debeli.
What do you make of the director appointment of Miriam Clegg to Acciona (Worlds Largest Wind Turbine Manufacturer) about one month after your beloved Nick became Deputy Prime Minister? Can't be a coincidence surely, when her husband, now in a position of great influence has been an advocate of Wind Turbines. Not to mention both of them are darlings of Brussels and advocates of signing the UK up to the Euro emissions policy.
Would love to know whether you think it purely coincidence. Or, as I do pure corruption.



UKIP. F**k Yeh!

rick_chasey

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Large influxes of migrants tend not to move to affluent or rural areas, .

Ironic isn't it that all the places UKIP does well are rural areas with low immigration?

It's almost like, if you live next door to immigrants, you realise they're not all that different to you.

Why? do you think they are or used too?
the point I was trying to make and obviously failing, with you, is that there is little point in mass migration and then creating ghettos, where unemployment, crime and poverty are endemic and alienating existing migrant communities and/or the indigenous population... who does that benefit? certainly not the migrants or do you think that the way immigration in Western Europe has been handled in the 30 years is a resounding success?

I integrated alright.

So did my mother.

People focus on ghettos sure, but there are plenty more English speaking ghettos as there are foreign.

It's like those who have integrated never get counted when this discussion comes up.

I'm an immigrant. I don't live in a ghetto. Neither do my German, Indian, Iranian, Italian friends.

My office is 40% first generation immigrant (including the entire finance team who are all muslim, except for one Israeli - no joke) and none of them live in ghettos either. One lives in a nice big house in surrey, one lives in Whitechappel, one lives in Angel. They all speak English at work and their own language on the phone to their family. Like me.

So don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Ghettos are a problem - for sure. Ghettos where the inhabitants don't speak English are even harder to solve than English speaking, but it's not like we do a great job of dealing with any Ghetto, English speaking or otherwise.

Maybe your issue is general poverty, rather than immigration? And instead, immigration is an easy answer to a complex problem?

FWIW, if you cut out all immigration tomorrow there will still be ghettos. There'll just be a different racial profile.

mamba80

Of course many many migrants integrate and I am all for that but what pees me off is that our system allows potentially untold EU migrants to come to the UK and many are allowed to become exploited BUT allows 90 Syrian refugees into the country, people who are in desperate need of help but in order to keep the numbers as low as possible, these men, women and children are left to rot... is that what we want?
the UK has always been a heaven for refugees and we ve opened our doors to genuine people in need but what we have now is just wrong.

tangled_metal

Well that won't change even if UKIP got significant number of MPs. We're not leaving the EU any time soon and it's abundantly clear most other EU members view open EU free movement as a central part of membership. To stop it you need to get UK out. Won't happen. If you vote UKIP you'll not achieve this, you'll waste your vote. They've no other policies to speak of neither.

rick_chasey

mamba80 wrote:

Of course many many migrants integrate and I am all for that but what pees me off is that our system allows potentially untold EU migrants to come to the UK and many are allowed to become exploited BUT allows 90 Syrian refugees into the country, people who are in desperate need of help but in order to keep the numbers as low as possible, these men, women and children are left to rot... is that what we want?
the UK has always been a heaven for refugees and we ve opened our doors to genuine people in need but what we have now is just wrong.

Quantify what you think. Look into the numbers - how many people immigrate and emigrate etc. You'd be surprised.

There was some graph in the economist half a year ago plotting actual immigration versus % of people who thought immigration had "gone too far". The latter stayed constant at 70% for the last 100 years. No corrolation.

Also wasn't it reported more Brits outside of the UK are claiming EU member jobseekers (or equivalent) than non British EU claiming British jobseekers?

If you think something that is easily measurable - go find the numbers.

ballysmate

Mamba, don't bother your ar5e.
I provided election results demonstrating UKIP support is not confined to rural areas and got called a wierdo for my trouble.
Perhaps if you post a picture with nice colours you may have better luck.
Better still, get Arran to lend him some crayons to colour it in himself.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Mamba, don't bother your ar5e.
I provided election results demonstrating UKIP support is not confined to rural areas and got called a wierdo for my trouble.
Perhaps if you post a picture with nice colours you may have better luck.
Better still, get Arran to lend him some crayons to colour it in himself.

Thought you had a thicker skin than that.

What you provided was local council results where only a fraction of councils were up for election. That's why so many results have no data.

It's accepted fact that ukip do much better in rural areas, especially those with low immigration.

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

Given the report published used the same data you just linked, I'll back them, rather than some weirdo on the internet .

Rick, you refuse to answer the questions I raised and then you name call, so I am out on this topic. you should really re read the forum rules.

slowmart

Its a mute point re UKIP's support base as when it comes down to the crunch people will play safe and the Tories are the natural party of choice for that demographic.

I see the tories winning with an overall majority on the basis that the alternatives and "leaders" of the opposition are really poor. And I use the term leaders loosely as both Clegg and Milliband have had a charisma, personality and ability bypass.

We have a political system we deserve, how many people actually vote on here? The apathy amongst the general public is at an all time high.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/voterapathy

rick_chasey

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Given the report published used the same data you just linked, I'll back them, rather than some weirdo on the internet .

Rick, you refuse to answer the questions I raised and then you name call, so I am out on this topic. you should really re read the forum rules.

Ask them again because I struggle to see them!

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Mamba, don't bother your ar5e.
I provided election results demonstrating UKIP support is not confined to rural areas and got called a wierdo for my trouble.
Perhaps if you post a picture with nice colours you may have better luck.
Better still, get Arran to lend him some crayons to colour it in himself.

Thought you had a thicker skin than that.

What you provided was local council results where only a fraction of councils were up for election. That's why so many results have no data.

It's accepted fact that ukip do much better in rural areas, especially those with low immigration.

Don't worry about me being thin skinned Rick, people on here have a long way to go before they start causing me offence.
If you look at the areas where votes were cast you will see that there were an awful lot of urban seats. The UKIP vote was solid.


Edit I'd rather be called a wierdo than a Liberal.

morstar

I once heard somebody being interviewed on radio about the loss of certain types of trees in this country and how the landscape was changing forever.

He acknowledged this was undeniably the case but went on to make the following point. He said the landscape of British trees has perpetually evolved over hundreds and thousands of years and the problem is when somebody picks a random era that represents their personal preference and then decides that any variance from that is inherently bad.

There are very similar parallels with immigration. Us modern day Brits are merely a snapshot in time and perpetually evolving. There is absolutely no doubt that society is changing as a result. The problem is that those most anti are people who are scared of change. These are not people who take things forward, they are stick in the muds and little Englanders who want everything just so or have been convinced that these immigrants are the reason for their own struggles.

I see the immigrants that work in our factory (primarily Polish) as go getters. People who 'got on their bike' (Tebbit anybody?) to make better lives for themselves. These are people who add value to society.

Is mass immigration perfect for us? Probably not, but if we solely listened to the middle class, middle aged person who is comfortable and aspires for nothing other than everything about their live to remain exactly as it is, we are not moving forward as a society. They are the Mail readers who fear everything that doesn't fit in with their own little utopia. I suspect a few of them ride bikes.

ManOfKent

I voted UKIP years ago, when they were a tiny, single-issue party, because I believe self-determination is best and supported leaving the EU, in principle. (That said, I'm not sure I'd vote for it in a referendum because there are sound pragmatic reasons for staying in.)

Now they're obsessed with immigration, appealing to the basest instincts of people who are afraid of change, which I hope isn't me, and consequently I will never vote for them again. As Rick alluded to, a survey late last year showed that fear of immigration (although not necessarily UKIP support) was strongest in areas with the lowest levels of immigrants. And there are a good many EU countries where more Brits claim welfare benefits than their citizens do here. The debate is skewed by the likes of Romania, Bulgaria and Poland, whose people contribute hugely to our economy even as they claim child benefit etc.

Immigration is nowhere near the top five issues I'm concerned about in modern Britain and it's a shame it gets disproportionate attention in the media, perhaps because it's so easy to find people with little knowledge, strong opinions and a loud voice.

I live in a constituency that was staunchly blue for decades, then went red in the Blair years and now has a Tory MP who was formerly a member of the Labour party. It's probably a seat that Labour will need to win for an overall majority so my vote may be important and I don't have a clue who I'll support, if anyone. None of the parties has convinced me it can improve the lot of the broad spectrum of people in this messy, unbalanced country.