Ukip. All discussion here please.

[Lotusflower 10]

Brand was worse than Farage at that, Farage stayed on topic as a lot of the questions were about immigration. Brand (although I do quite like him), went off topic loads, including bringing bankers bonuses up when asked about overcrowding in the country.

 

Regarding the ladies on the panel, I thought they were awful, with the very credible exception of the journalist (Camila Cavendish?), who was outstanding. They were petty (the petty comment "talking of career politicians, Nigel Farage is a prime example", when asked about is pettiness ruining politics and the accusations of sexism just because Brand talked over a female - no comment when he talked over fellow males) and although the blonde carried herself fairly well (she was probably 3rd behind Camila and Farage), she has lost all credibility after her shambolic parliament display.

 

Re my bold.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that you haven't missed the point here.

 

Farage was saying overcrowding (by immigrants) in the country was the cause of larger waiting room queues, less housing stock, rising benefits etc.

Brand was pointing out that the economic woes currently being experienced are the fault of the greed of bankers and not immigrants.

Hardly seems "off topic" to me.

[alchresearch 214]

Congratulations to Farage. Brand tried to slur him at every opportunity and failed dismally.

[charmer 10]

Re my bold.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that you haven't missed the point here.

 

Farage was saying overcrowding (by immigrants) in the country was the cause of larger waiting room queues, less housing stock, rising benefits etc.

Brand was pointing out that the economic woes currently being experienced are the fault of the greed of bankers and not immigrants.

Hardly seems "off topic" to me.

 

It has nothing to do with what a private business (a bank) pays it's staff. If this money wasn't paid as a bonus, it wouldn't go to the NHS. If I lose my bonus at work then it doesn't go to the public funds.

 

The wider greed of bankers, which you allude to and Russel didn't, is possibly partially to blame. The greed of selling debt and bond packages did possibly cause people to make rash decision regarding transferal of debts, this exacerbated, rather than caused, the problems experienced over the last few years.

 

With an open door policy, it is hard to determine how many people we will have in the country in say 50 years, this makes it difficult to plan for hospitals, schools, roads etc. This can't be denied.

[Lotusflower 10]

It has nothing to do with what a private business (a bank) pays it's staff. If this money wasn't paid as a bonus, it wouldn't go to the NHS. If I lose my bonus at work then it doesn't go to the public funds.

 

The wider greed of bankers, which you allude to and Russel didn't, is possibly partially to blame. The greed of selling debt and bond packages did possibly cause people to make rash decision regarding transferal of debts, this exacerbated, rather than caused, the problems experienced over the last few years.

 

With an open door policy, it is hard to determine how many people we will have in the country in say 50 years, this makes it difficult to plan for hospitals, schools, roads etc. This can't be denied.

 

Re my bold.

 

That is a pure flight of fancy on your part. It does not exist!

 

We can, I hope, agree to disagree on the rest of what you believe.

[retep 68]

Re my bold.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that you haven't missed the point here.

 

Farage was saying overcrowding (by immigrants) in the country was the cause of larger waiting room queues, less housing stock, rising benefits etc.

Brand was pointing out that the economic woes currently being experienced are the fault of the greed of bankers and not immigrants.

Hardly seems "off topic" to me.

 

 

Has there been an influx of bankers in A&E, schools, housing, benefits?

[Lotusflower 10]

Has there been an influx of bankers in A&E, schools, housing, benefits?

 

Rhetorical?

 

Or serious question?

[charmer 10]

Re my bold.

 

That is a pure flight of fancy on your part. It does not exist!

 

We can, I hope, agree to disagree on the rest of what you believe.

 

 

I didn't say it did exist here.

 

However it is open door to the EU (BTW I am pro EU and recognise that the benefits of immigration to this fair land far outweighs the negatives) and this can make future planning hard as historically, migration rates fluctuate to a far higher degree than birth rates.

[L00b 441]

Rhetorical?

 

Or serious question?

Come on, Swami...when have you seen retep doing 'serious' in here?

 

charmer's point about immigration and long-term planning is logical, but abstracts the non-trivial fact that all other EU Member States are in the exact same position: the freedom of movement is a completely reciprocal principle wherever intra-EU, the problem (inasmuch as there is one) does not lie with that aspect of EU workings and membership, and the solution (inasmuch as one may actually be needed) cannot stem from there.

Edited December 12, 2014 by L00b

[Lotusflower 10]

I didn't say it did exist here.

 

However it is open door to the EU (BTW I am pro EU and recognise that the benefits of immigration to this fair land far outweighs the negatives) and this can make future planning hard as historically, migration rates fluctuate to a far higher degree than birth rates.

 

If I misunderstood I apologise.

 

---------- Post added 12-12-2014 at 12:41 ----------

 

Come on, Swami...when have you seen retep doing 'serious' in here?

 

My tongue is still stuck very firmly in my cheek!

[retep 68]

Rhetorical?

 

Or serious question?

 

Serious question, unless you know of 260 odd thousand bankers flooding the country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30224637

[charmer 10]

Come on, Swami...when have you seen retep doing 'serious' in here?

 

charmer's point about immigration and long-term planning is logical, but abstracts the non-trivial fact that all other EU Member States are in the exact same position: the freedom of movement is a completely reciprocal principle wherever intra-EU, the problem (inasmuch as there is one) does not lie with that aspect of EU workings and membership, and the solution (inasmuch as one may actually be needed) cannot stem from there.

 

Whilst you are right, the two way nature of this immigration system actually exacerbates the situation, as there is now two volatile variables impacting population change.

 

I believe that in fact the problem does lie with this aspect of EU membership (though as I said before, there is a very strong argument that the benefits of EU membership outweigh this negative, an argument that I support and endorse). The solution must stem from this aspect, but the answer is absolutely not in my view, removal of our nation from the worlds biggest and most secure trading block.

 

Perhaps residency in other EU countries should only be granted when an individual has a job within x months of arriving? On a tangent slightly but perhaps criminals convicted of a certain severity of offence should not be permitted residency in any other country than their own (including the Brits who flock to the Costa Del Sol).

 

These sort of discussions need to be aired about migration within the EU.

 

On the subject of non-EU migration, this should be managed. As I have said, Britain has done very well historically from migration, but by managing the influx of assets, we can do even better!

[Lotusflower 10]

Serious question, unless you know of 260 odd thousand bankers flooding the country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30224637

 

Whilst I've always belonged to the school of thought that thinks it rude to answer a question by asking a question...

 

...why do you insist on missing the point?

 

It has nothing to do with the number of immigrants!