Your method of posting puts me off replying...... it's like looking at a chemistry A level exam paper after you've just turned it over or trying to understand a question about Binary Codes on "University Challenge".

I can't be arsed to reply to all of your points and it would only encourage you to ask more.

I will address the last point....

I said strain on infrastructure, not just housing infrastructure!

Building loads of houses sorts out a short term need, but long term it doesn't. Shortages of Water, schooling facilities, GP's, Hospitals, Road Space, etc would still exist and take away prime farmland or recreational space for ever.

Point 1 - I would imagine that a lot of the white people are fed up with politicians letting them down and don't bother to vote in those areas.

Point 2 - A couple of years is a very long time in politics and UKIP are getting a lot more traction than every other party (except the SNP) now.

I imagine Bradford West is largely filled with Indian/pakistani/Bangladesh people, and I know for a fact Bristol East is, so no surprise on a Labour councillor being voted in.

The main point I was trying to make (probably badly!) was that the rise in UKIP voters is more to do with personal hardships caused by overcrowding rather than a view on whether immigrants are good for the economy or are not entitled to benefits, ie our infrastructure is struggling to cope.

The fact raised about only 7% of our land mass is built on is largely irrelevant. A lot of the alleged remaining 93% of land mass would be uninhabitable or prime farmland.

If you could provide any evidence of this, I'd be interested to see it. The Telegraph (certainly not a leftist publication) disagrees with you:

[Link]

"Seven per cent of white British people weren't registered to vote in 2010. For all other ethnic groups, the percentage not registered to vote was substantially higher – 28 per cent of black Africans weren’t registered. Ethnic minorities who are registered are almost as likely to vote as the rest of the electorate – but, because of the high numbers not registered, their electoral significance remains disproportionately low."

The census in 2011 said that in Bradford 67% were white, 27% were Asian. In Bristol, 84% of the population are white. Even if you excluded all Indian/pakistani/Bangladesh people from voting, UKIP would be obliterated in any election, since 96.6% of voters didn't support them in the last election.

It's very easy to say that UKIP doesn't do well in areas with high immigration because immigrants don't vote for them, but some immigrants can't even vote in the general election and their white neighbours seem to invariably vote for parties other than UKIP, unlike those in areas with low levels of immigration on that map that started this discussion.

Then why do those in "overcrowded areas" like London, Birmingham, Bristol and so on continue to vote for various parties (even the Lib Dems and the Greens!) ahead of UKIP?

And a lot of it would be neither. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of developers who think the land might make more money as housing. Besides, thanks to decades of industrial decline, there are various brownfield sites available for building housing on.

And you know the beauty of that idea? The areas where industry is f*cked are usually areas with high unemployment and loads of UKIP voters. Given they're so worried about the "strain on the housing infrastructure", why not build more houses in their areas, creating jobs at the same time?

Thank you Stuk....... at least you're paying attention!

He also gave me the demographics for the whole of Bristol rather then Bristol East.

I don't think his errors will affect him though... he has a very high opinion of himself.

It doesn't help when posters like sanitycheck start bigging him up when he spouts his bollocks either.