Yes

if ukip get a foot in the door the others will have to pull their shit together.

What makes you think that?

What makes you think that?

Because once they have a foot in the door, they mat barge through. The big 2 parties won’t sleepwalk into the next election. The SNP took 40 years to get from a fringe crackpot party to nearly breaking the union.

UKIP could do it in 10.

Cameron and Milliband are doing the same as many on here. Mocking and eyerolling and shaking there heads.

Come May there will be a reality check. They need to have a better plan to put folk off UKIP than what they are currently attempting

Aren’t the shadow cabinet and the media always keeping the leading party in check, and not allowing any major changes without a massive public outcry?

This to me means no matter which party is in power, they will roughly follow the same path, and it doesn’t matter who’s in charge, as nothing will really change in the end.

@ScottCheggYou could have a point there, if it results in an honest discussion of the issues of immigration and the EU. What is more likely though is that if UKIP were to get some significant number of MPs then the main parties (in fact the Conservatives) would have to give concessions to them on immigration in exchange for support on other issues. In fact this is what is depicted on Borgen (UKIP = “Freedom Party”) so it must be true.

Well. It’s not illegal.

But neither is marrying your cousin.

Because once they have a foot in the door, they mat barge through

What? Like the Lib Dems? Having got a sniff of power and having to come to some accomodation with another party, they now find themselves the pariah of British politics.

Does North Borneo have different laws to the rest of Malaysia – how does that work ?

The piece said it was a local law, so yes it seems they do. Plenty of countries have different regional/local laws and certainly different interpretations/implementations. Easy to imagine Borneo could have different laws than mainland Malaysia, plus then you have the majority Indonesian part of the Island plus Brunei

Which means there will be 545 seats where they don’t even manage second.

@scotroutes but 100 second places is a huge breakthrough for what was very much a niche/one man band party. That’s certainly a result the Greens would be proud of and can’t be far off the Lib Dems.

@DrJ – I am not sure what concessions the Tories could give on immigration, EU law overrides our own and we have no control. The past 5 years have shown that despite Tory pledges to control numbers you can’t actually do so. I think the main UKIP agenda item would be a binding EU in/out referendum with regards to immigration.

UKIP are racist, misogynist, homophobic pieces of shit and if you vote for them so are you.

but 100 second places is a huge breakthrough

Its progress but I think they need to transform them to wins for it to be a breakthrough less than 5 Mps wont translate to that much power.

IMHO their main problem is at least the same % of the population hate them as support them and many people [ as this thread shows] would not only not vote for them they dont think much of those who do vote for them. Its hard to see how they can get higher than now, due to this, and FPTP may well limit them to [ millions of] more votes than the SNP , the lib dems ,DUP and Plaid Cymru etc but much fewer MP’s.
I think this is their zenith and their big success will be securing a referendum from the Tories. i am not sure they can achieve that but we will see

UKIP are racist, misogynist, homophobic pieces of shit and if you vote for them so are you.

So if you already are a racist, misogynist, homophobic pieces of shit, there’s only one choice for you.

@DrJ – I am not sure what concessions the Tories could give on immigration, EU law overrides our own and we have no control.

I don’t think EU law overrides ours as regards immigration from outside the EU, how many asylum seekers we admit etc., and anyway other countries (Denmark, Germany) interpret EU law more harshly wrt immigration than we do.

Germany- not sure that is true. w eare often told other countries “interpret” the rules differently – interesting meme as it portrays us as honest and the rest as dishonest] – but its rarely true and usually just things we have heard so often we start to believe it – not at dig at you at all DrP the drip drip of anti EU BS is endless and we all fall for some of it myself included.

1993-present[edit]
In the mid nineties, only about 5 percent of the asylum applications were approved and processing and appeals were so slow, that many refugees spent years in Germany awaiting the outcome.[5] As of 2013, the approval rate was about 30 percent, and 127,000 people sought asylum. As of 30 November 2014 more than 180,000 people have applied, with an expected 2014 total of 200,000. This equals to 0.4 percent of the 51.2 million global refugees. Germany’s percentage of refugees per capita is lower than that of Sweden and Malta.[10]
§Comparison with other countries from European Union[edit]
According to Eurostat 47.3 million people lived in the European Union in 2010 who were born outside their resident country. This corresponds to 9.4% of the total EU population. Of these, 31.4 million (6.3%) were born outside the EU and 16.0 million (3.2%) were born in another EU member state. The largest absolute numbers of people born outside the EU were in Germany (6.4 million), France (5.1 1993-present[edit]
In the mid nineties, only about 5 percent of the asylum applications were approved and processing and appeals were so slow, that many refugees spent years in Germany awaiting the outcome.[5] As of 2013, the approval rate was about 30 percent, and 127,000 people sought asylum. As of 30 November 2014 more than 180,000 people have applied, with an expected 2014 total of 200,000. This equals to 0.4 percent of the 51.2 million global refugees. Germany’s percentage of refugees per capita is lower than that of Sweden and Malta.[10]
§Comparison with other countries from European Union[edit]
According to Eurostat 47.3 million people lived in the European Union in 2010 who were born outside their resident country. This corresponds to 9.4% of the total EU population. Of these, 31.4 million (6.3%) were born outside the EU and 16.0 million (3.2%) were born in another EU member state. The largest absolute numbers of people born outside the EU were in Germany (6.4 million), France (5.1

No its not wrong but in my opinion very unwise, very very unwise.

Agreed DrJ but asylum seekers etc aren’t the issue numbers wise and the agenda of the EU is continued expansion and the majority of those joining are poor countries where the incentive to relocate to the richer EU economies is huge. We keep hearing about immigrants who are coming here and paying their taxes but with personal allowance at 11k each a couple can arrive and pay very little in the way of tax and certainly not enough to support the school paces and NHS services they will require.

JY I think refugees/asylum seekers should be funded like we do with the Lifeboats/RNLI. We have a charity setup which processes their applications and provides accommodation and remains responsible for them financially. If the public support asylum seekers morally they can do so by donating to the charities. The charity has a specific budget and that dictates the numbers.

Certainly interesting to see the politics, the Socialist Workers Party where out in force in West London around the QPR stadium with leaflets and banners saying Immigrants Welcome Here in what is a very ethnically mixed area

We keep hearing about immigrants who are coming here and paying their taxes but with personal allowance at 11k each a couple can arrive and pay very little in the way of tax and certainly not enough to support the school paces and NHS services they will require.

Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a net gain from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits, although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the ‘all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems’ mantra.

A new report, put out by University College London’s Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, finds that immigrants from the 10 countries which joined the EU in 2004 contributed £4.96bn more in taxes up to 2011 than they took out through the use of benefits and public services. The study factors in immigrants’ proportionate share of public service costs.

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a net gain from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits, although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the ‘all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems’ mantra.

Overly simplistic as shown by this study

In this new analysis of the economic and demographic consequences of current levels of immigration, the distinguished Cambridge economist Robert Rowthorn finds that the potential economic gains from immigration are modest compared with the strains placed on amenities such as housing, land, schools, hospitals, water supply and transport systems.
While GDP as a whole will grow with increased immigration, Rowthorn notes, GDP per capita – a much better indicator of the nation’s wealth – will be only marginally affected by the enormous population growth forecast for the coming century. He cites the Office for National Statistics’ high migration scenario, which sees growth in the UK population of 20 million over the next 50 years and 29 million over the next 75 years – entirely from migration. This is equivalent to adding a city almost the size of Birmingham to the UK population every two-and-a-half years for the next 75 years.
“Unrestrained population growth would eventually have a negative impact on the standard of living through its environmental effects such as overcrowding, congestion and loss of amenity,” Rowthorn writes.

Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a net gain from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits, although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the ‘all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems’ mantra.

@footflaps but these studies are hugely impacted by immigrants like all the bankers who come to work for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Societe Generale etc etc all of whom whould be granted a work VISA under any application scheme

UKIP are not saying there will be no immigration just an application process as exists in the Australia, the US, Canada etc etc

Just seen @mefty’s post and that’s exactly my point

Overly simplistic as shown by this study

They are two different things, one looks at what has happened (net gain) and one looks at what might happen…

(LibDem) Having got a sniff of power and having to come to some accomodation with another party, they now find themselves the pariah of British politics.

No, not like this. The Lib Dems took a seat at the big table and it has broken them. They are no longer a lovable, hopeless third party who turn up every 5 years looking worthy; they’ve made themselves unvotable (Is that a word? It is now!) by showing that, when it all shakes out, they are the same as the other two and they long to be like them.

UKIP may have a respectable showing in the General Election, but if they manage to keep their distance from any coalition, they will make themselves a respectable choice for the next GE.

Where they could pounce and really make themselves comfy in Parliament; having shaken off Farage along the way and having someone who at least appears normal at the helm.

The report you quoted is for EU migration, what about non-EU ?

Edit: Found it http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467

Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a net gain from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits.

Net gain, some contribute, some don’t – here’s a wild idea, how about we pick and choose like other countries do?

although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the ‘all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems’ mantra.

Really? I thought Nige was pretty clear that immigration in itself was not a problem, whilst open door immigration from the entirety of the EU was

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XLmiAaR3ZVs[/video]

but if they manage to keep their distance from any coalition

How can they possibly do that whilst having any power?

You do realise that he’s actually the most sane of the lot of them?

They are two different things, one looks at what has happened (net gain) and one looks at what might happen…

If you read it, you will find considerable commentary and discussion on the past as well.

@footflaps but these studies are hugely impacted by immigrants like all the bankers

Think it’s more that they are young and fit. If a load of elderly Romanians showed up things might be different.

Meanwhile – I will look for the reference about Germany, but basically it was about them being able to refuse benefits. IIRC it provoked some interest here as a possible precedent.

Net gain, some contribute, some don’t – here’s a wild idea, how about we pick and choose like other countries do?

Because if you want to be part of the EU, you don’t get that choice.

how about we pick and choose like other countries do?

we cannot do this for EU immigration just like “other countries” cannot
As for the rest we do pick and choose as we still have an immigration policy.

You just abandoned your free market principles in order to argue the government puts regulation in the way of the market.
Shameful leftism there 8)

Serious Q why do the right wing want to do this with people but they trust business? Never understood that duality.

ninfan – Member
Net gain, some contribute, some don’t – here’s a wild idea, how about we pick and choose like other countries do?

Two things UKIP are perpetually misrepresented on are that they are for assylum for refugees and that they are for immigration – but as you say, selective.

I see no logical reason why we do not at least try to get the right immigrants.

Furthermore, most of the things that blight UK resident’s lives (be they British born or immigrant) are broadly associated with overpopulation. It is politically convenient to keep GDP (and thereby tax take) growing by means of immigration, but the real cost is being borne by ordinary people, unable to afford rising housing costs and the luxury of private services -in health, education and first class transport – to shield them from the overburdened infrastructure and welfare system.

We can’t kid ourselves that we can do without better control of the rate of increase of population.

Looking at the value of an immigrant solely as tax paid is silly, you need to look at their gva. A student pays little or no tax, for instance, but they contribute £10bn per year to the UK economy directly, and even more indirectly.

Though of course that’s falling every year, because Theresa May’s a halfwit.

You flatter her there NW

You are not immune from racism due to your skin colour.

Was once verbally attacked by a shrieking and self-righteous neo-lib woman who entirely disagreed with that sentiment. She maintained that only caucasian people could be ‘racist’, and that I was ‘racist’ to suggest otherwise. Stupid honky cracker, I nearly called her a bimbo.

How can they possibly do that whilst having any power?

Win a few seats?

Furthermore, most of the things that blight UK resident’s lives (be they British born or immigrant) are broadly associated with overpopulation. It is politically convenient to keep GDP (and thereby tax take) growing by means of immigration, but the real cost is being borne by ordinary people, unable to afford rising housing costs and the luxury of private services -in health, education and first class transport – to shield them from the overburdened infrastructure and welfare system.

Immigration has added to the strain a bit, but not as much as demographic changes which have happened in the UK, mainly smaller house holds, mass migration from rural areas to cities and economic migration to the SE. These have put enormous pressure on the housing market in certain areas and we’ve had successive governments who have no real interest in building new houses and are quite happy to let a housing bubble concentrate wealth in an elite few (those born before 1970). Even without migration we’d still have these problems.

You could blame immigration, but economic policy since 1979 has been focussed on enriching those that already have wealth (esp housing assets) at the expense of those that don’t.

Net gain, some contribute, some don’t – here’s a wild idea, how about we pick and choose like other countries do?

Much like the locals, then. Who decides who should have a right to be here?

@allthepies – that chart can’t possibly make sense, it basically says the UK born population doesn’t sustain itself and we are reliant on immigrants to balance the books ?

Win a few seats?

<Sigh> My reply was to “but if they manage to keep their distance from any coalition”.

A few seats will get them nowhere. More than a few but less than a lot may get them into a coalition. I order to avoid a coalition and have power they need…?

The thing about UKIP is that while, on a cursory inspection, most of their policies look not totally bonkers (I do think that withdrawing from the EU would be v bad), a large proportion of their supporters and candidates really do seem to be swivel-eyed loons. Just look at the “gay marriage causing the floods” comments, anything that Godfrey Bloom says (although he has now left UKIP as it is too PC!), and the latest ”Nigel is the Messiah” wacko-doodlery.

It is a bad sign when Nigel Farage is the “voice of reason” in a party.