Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

ukip (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 171 of 311 < 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 >

Topic Locked

Stirlingsays 08 Feb 15 6.41pm
Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 11.36am There's a legitimate debate to be had about that,since some would say the benefits have not been only "entirely one way": [Link] Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 11.38am) It's a simplistic headline that misses the fact that the meat of the argument is actually pretty negative for the people with least. Of course significantly increasing the population is good for business, it keeps wages down, makes getting a good job more competitive (increasing the size of the underclass or working poor) and it puts house prices and rents up. It's terrible for social cohension and for people without access to social housing or enough jobs that pay enough to provide a standard of living. Building houses is expensive and long term with no short term benefits......It was always going to happen. High level immigration has been terrible for those with least (I grew up in a Stockwell council estate) and comfortable people who defend it yet are supposedly left wing are way short of traditional Labour ideals. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

08 Feb 15 6.41pm

Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 11.36am

There's a legitimate debate to be had about that,since some would say the benefits have not been only "entirely one way":

[Link]

Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 11.38am)

It's a simplistic headline that misses the fact that the meat of the argument is actually pretty negative for the people with least.

Of course significantly increasing the population is good for business, it keeps wages down, makes getting a good job more competitive (increasing the size of the underclass or working poor) and it puts house prices and rents up.

It's terrible for social cohension and for people without access to social housing or enough jobs that pay enough to provide a standard of living.

Building houses is expensive and long term with no short term benefits......It was always going to happen.

High level immigration has been terrible for those with least (I grew up in a Stockwell council estate) and comfortable people who defend it yet are supposedly left wing are way short of traditional Labour ideals.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Feb 15 7.17pm
Forgive me if I'm wrong Enoch, sorry Stirlingsays, are you attributing the woes of different areas of our proud nation on immigration? That's both wrong and naive. People are struggling on low pay because employers have been able to get away with it. People are struggling not because of immigration but from lack of investment in the right areas. No job creation, benefits cut and wealth transfer to the richest. This is not the fault of the immigrants, nor those already here. If you really think a load of ex Tories are going to be on the side of the worst off I think you are sorely mistaken.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 08 Feb 15 7.17pm

Forgive me if I'm wrong Enoch, sorry Stirlingsays, are you attributing the woes of different areas of our proud nation on immigration?
That's both wrong and naive. People are struggling on low pay because employers have been able to get away with it. People are struggling not because of immigration but from lack of investment in the right areas. No job creation, benefits cut and wealth transfer to the richest. This is not the fault of the immigrants, nor those already here.
If you really think a load of ex Tories are going to be on the side of the worst off I think you are sorely mistaken.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 08 Feb 15 8.55pm
. Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 9.22pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

08 Feb 15 8.55pm

Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 9.22pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 08 Feb 15 9.17pm
Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 8.55pm Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Feb 2015 6.41pm Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 11.36am There's a legitimate debate to be had about that,since some would say the benefits have not been only "entirely one way": [Link] Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 11.38am) It's a simplistic headline that misses the fact that the meat of the argument is actually pretty negative for the people with least. Of course significantly increasing the population is good for business, it keeps wages down, makes getting a good job more competitive (increasing the size of the underclass or working poor) and it puts house prices and rents up. It's terrible for social cohension and for people without access to social housing or enough jobs that pay enough to provide a standard of living. Building houses is expensive and long term with no short term benefits......It was always going to happen. High level immigration has been terrible for those with least (I grew up in a Stockwell council estate) and comfortable people who defend it yet are supposedly left wing are way short of traditional Labour ideals. Its certainly no less simplistic than saying the benefits have been all one way. The analysis you put forward is very similar to that often heard in the 1950-'s-60's re immigration then from the West Indies and the Indian sub-continent.Just to use one silly example of a "benefit", many people now think of going to an "Indian Restaurant" (actually mainly Bangla Deshi) as an integral part of "British" cuisine and way of life,not to mention corner shops open after 6pm. When I lived very close to Stockwell in the 1980's,the Indian restaurants/take aways were well frequented by the locals Regarding "traditional" Labour ideals (not seen much in the party leadership nowadays), one traditional ideal was to encourage people to see the real reasons for their woes as opposed to falling for diversionary stuff scapegoating others,usually "outsiders",N. Ireland 1900 ish-1969 ish being but one example. Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 10.20pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

08 Feb 15 9.17pm

Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 8.55pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Feb 2015 6.41pm

Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 11.36am

There's a legitimate debate to be had about that,since some would say the benefits have not been only "entirely one way":

[Link]

Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 11.38am)

It's a simplistic headline that misses the fact that the meat of the argument is actually pretty negative for the people with least.

It's terrible for social cohension and for people without access to social housing or enough jobs that pay enough to provide a standard of living.

Building houses is expensive and long term with no short term benefits......It was always going to happen.

Its certainly no less simplistic than saying the benefits have been all one way.

The analysis you put forward is very similar to that often heard in the 1950-'s-60's re immigration then from the West Indies and the Indian sub-continent.Just to use one silly example of a "benefit", many people now think of going to an "Indian Restaurant" (actually mainly Bangla Deshi) as an integral part of "British" cuisine and way of life,not to mention corner shops open after 6pm. When I lived very close to Stockwell in the 1980's,the Indian restaurants/take aways were well frequented by the locals

Regarding "traditional" Labour ideals (not seen much in the party leadership nowadays), one traditional ideal was to encourage people to see the real reasons for their woes as opposed to falling for diversionary stuff scapegoating others,usually "outsiders",N. Ireland 1900 ish-1969 ish being but one example.

Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 10.20pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 08 Feb 15 9.23pm
Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 8.55pm Its certainly no less simplistic than saying the benefits have been all one way. The analysis you put forward is very similar to that often heard in the 1950-'s-60's re immigration then from the West Indies and the Indian sub-continent.Just to use one silly example of a "benefit", many people now think of going to an "Indian Restaurant" (actually mainly Bangla Deshi) as an integral part of "British" cuisine and way of life,not to mention corner shops open after 6pm. Regarding "traditional" Labour ideals (not seen much in the party leadership nowadays), one traditional ideal was to encourage people to see the real reasons for their woes as opposed to falling for diversionary stuff scapegoating others,usually "outsiders",N. Ireland 1900 ish-1969 ish being but one example. Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 9.08pm) Where did I say it was all one way?....I started out my post recognizing how an ever increasing population allows for a situation that is marginally better for business....Though that report makes extremely debatable chooses over its profit and cost areas. Also to answer another of your points there is no connection in terms of numbers between what's been happening since 2004 and the immigration in number from immigration Where is this similarity?.....Where you around to hear it? I think you are possibly showing your prejudices here. I'm 45, how old are you?....I don't remember commentary on 50/60s immigration. What was the population then? What was the housing situation then? I have no idea. As for you commentary on my opinions they appear to be stereotypical caricatures......Quite amusing really considering all the moaning you've done about how I pigeon-hole the left......You seem to be just what you complain about. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

08 Feb 15 9.23pm

Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 8.55pm

Its certainly no less simplistic than saying the benefits have been all one way.

Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 9.08pm)

Where did I say it was all one way?....I started out my post recognizing how an ever increasing population allows for a situation that is marginally better for business....Though that report makes extremely debatable chooses over its profit and cost areas.

Also to answer another of your points there is no connection in terms of numbers between what's been happening since 2004 and the immigration in number from immigration

Where is this similarity?.....Where you around to hear it? I think you are possibly showing your prejudices here.

I'm 45, how old are you?....I don't remember commentary on 50/60s immigration.

What was the population then? What was the housing situation then? I have no idea.

As for you commentary on my opinions they appear to be stereotypical caricatures......Quite amusing really considering all the moaning you've done about how I pigeon-hole the left......You seem to be just what you complain about.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 08 Feb 15 9.33pm
. Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 10.19pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

08 Feb 15 9.33pm

Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 10.19pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 08 Feb 15 9.33pm
Quote nickgusset at 08 Feb 2015 7.17pm Forgive me if I'm wrong Enoch, sorry Stirlingsays, are you attributing the woes of different areas of our proud nation on immigration? That's both wrong and naive. People are struggling on low pay because employers have been able to get away with it. People are struggling not because of immigration but from lack of investment in the right areas. No job creation, benefits cut and wealth transfer to the richest. This is not the fault of the immigrants, nor those already here. If you really think a load of ex Tories are going to be on the side of the worst off I think you are sorely mistaken. How do I put this Nick......You're wrong and incredibly naive......But I like you. Bring back Dick Emery. Seriously though but in short....As I must get ready for tomorrow's lessons but I think you're missing the obvious reality of the situation. More workers, less pay packet...It's simple economics. More people to house than the rate of housing growth......less housing for the least able. You deflecting these problems onto political decision makers has a partial truth to it......And no one sensible ever blames the actual immigrant themselves for trying to improve their lives. But I'm a realist and I want my son to grow up in a country which has a realistic possibility of him getting a house of his own. Your ideology says it wants that but what you believe in would make it impossible to become reality. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

08 Feb 15 9.33pm

Quote nickgusset at 08 Feb 2015 7.17pm

How do I put this Nick......You're wrong and incredibly naive......But I like you.

Bring back Dick Emery.

Seriously though but in short....As I must get ready for tomorrow's lessons but I think you're missing the obvious reality of the situation.

More workers, less pay packet...It's simple economics.
More people to house than the rate of housing growth......less housing for the least able.

You deflecting these problems onto political decision makers has a partial truth to it......And no one sensible ever blames the actual immigrant themselves for trying to improve their lives.

But I'm a realist and I want my son to grow up in a country which has a realistic possibility of him getting a house of his own.

Your ideology says it wants that but what you believe in would make it impossible to become reality.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 08 Feb 15 9.36pm
. Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 9.52pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

08 Feb 15 9.36pm

Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 9.52pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 08 Feb 15 9.43pm
Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 9.36pm Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 9.33pm Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Feb 2015 9.23pm Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 8.55pm Its certainly no less simplistic than saying the benefits have been all one way. The analysis you put forward is very similar to that often heard in the 1950-'s-60's re immigration then from the West Indies and the Indian sub-continent.Just to use one silly example of a "benefit", many people now think of going to an "Indian Restaurant" (actually mainly Bangla Deshi) as an integral part of "British" cuisine and way of life,not to mention corner shops open after 6pm. Regarding "traditional" Labour ideals (not seen much in the party leadership nowadays), one traditional ideal was to encourage people to see the real reasons for their woes as opposed to falling for diversionary stuff scapegoating others,usually "outsiders",N. Ireland 1900 ish-1969 ish being but one example. Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 9.08pm) Where did I say it was all one way?....I started out my post recognizing how an ever increasing population allows for a situation that is marginally better for business....Though that report makes extremely debatable chooses over its profit and cost areas. Also to answer another of your points there is no connection in terms of numbers between what's been happening since 2004 and the immigration in number from immigration Where is this similarity?.....Where you around to hear it? I think you are possibly showing your prejudices here. I'm 45, how old are you?....I don't remember commentary on 50/60s immigration. What was the population then? What was the housing situation then? I have no idea. As for you commentary on my opinions they appear to be stereotypical caricatures......Quite amusing really considering all the moaning you've done about how I pigeon-hole the left......You seem to be just what you complain about. I'm older than you,Stirling. You were responding to a post of mine,responding to someone who said there were no benefits to recent immigration.I then used an example of a benefit from past immigration to illustrate a point,given that you make similar arguments to many of those who were very anti-immigration in the late 1950's/60's.I do recall the arguments from the 60's, though I wasn't a "grown up" then. I'm not stereotyping you.I go merely on what you have written in your posts.If your analysis is more varied/different than your posts,am happy to read and consider it. If you recognise there are benefits,I'm delighted. If you are worried about your child being able to ever buy a house,do have a look,just as one non-immigration example, at the ongoing disastrous effect of the repeal of almost all rent control legislation by Maggie's government in 1980. Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 10.21pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

08 Feb 15 9.43pm

Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 9.36pm

Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 9.33pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Feb 2015 9.23pm

Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 8.55pm

Its certainly no less simplistic than saying the benefits have been all one way.

Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 9.08pm)

Also to answer another of your points there is no connection in terms of numbers between what's been happening since 2004 and the immigration in number from immigration

Where is this similarity?.....Where you around to hear it? I think you are possibly showing your prejudices here.

I'm 45, how old are you?....I don't remember commentary on 50/60s immigration.

What was the population then? What was the housing situation then? I have no idea.

I'm older than you,Stirling.

You were responding to a post of mine,responding to someone who said there were no benefits to recent immigration.I then used an example of a benefit from past immigration to illustrate a point,given that you make similar arguments to many of those who were very anti-immigration in the late 1950's/60's.I do recall the arguments from the 60's, though I wasn't a "grown up" then.

I'm not stereotyping you.I go merely on what you have written in your posts.If your analysis is more varied/different than your posts,am happy to read and consider it.

If you recognise there are benefits,I'm delighted.

If you are worried about your child being able to ever buy a house,do have a look,just as one non-immigration example, at the ongoing disastrous effect of the repeal of almost all rent control legislation by Maggie's government in 1980.

Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 10.21pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Feb 15 9.44pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Feb 2015 9.33pm Quote nickgusset at 08 Feb 2015 7.17pm Forgive me if I'm wrong Enoch, sorry Stirlingsays, are you attributing the woes of different areas of our proud nation on immigration? That's both wrong and naive. People are struggling on low pay because employers have been able to get away with it. People are struggling not because of immigration but from lack of investment in the right areas. No job creation, benefits cut and wealth transfer to the richest. This is not the fault of the immigrants, nor those already here. If you really think a load of ex Tories are going to be on the side of the worst off I think you are sorely mistaken. How do I put this Nick......You're wrong and incredibly naive......But I like you. Bring back Dick Emery. Seriously though but in short....As I must get ready for tomorrow's lessons but I think you're missing the obvious reality of the situation. More workers, less pay packet...It's simple economics. More people to house than the rate of housing growth......less housing for the least able. You deflecting these problems onto political decision makers has a partial truth to it......And no one sensible ever blames the actual immigrant themselves for trying to improve their lives. But I'm a realist and I want my son to grow up in a country which has a realistic possibility of him getting a house of his own. Your ideology says it wants that but what you believe in would make it impossible to become reality. It's not about immigration. It's about the economy (stupid) What I believe in is impossible with the people we have running the country/world . f*** the banks. Instead of bailing them out, put the money into house building, green or renewable energy or subsidising decent pay. If the banks were not bailed out what would have happened? Would society have fallen apart? I doubt it. Banks that came in to take over would have made damn sure they didn't lend to all and sundry and resold and resold toxic debts. Any time there's a recession or austerity the smokescreen of immigration is brought out to deflect from what the real issues are. People are getting so foammy mouthed at the 'Muslamics' and Poles and Rumanians that they are blind to what is happening.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 08 Feb 15 9.44pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Feb 2015 9.33pm

Quote nickgusset at 08 Feb 2015 7.17pm

How do I put this Nick......You're wrong and incredibly naive......But I like you.

Bring back Dick Emery.

Seriously though but in short....As I must get ready for tomorrow's lessons but I think you're missing the obvious reality of the situation.

More workers, less pay packet...It's simple economics.
More people to house than the rate of housing growth......less housing for the least able.

You deflecting these problems onto political decision makers has a partial truth to it......And no one sensible ever blames the actual immigrant themselves for trying to improve their lives.

But I'm a realist and I want my son to grow up in a country which has a realistic possibility of him getting a house of his own.

Your ideology says it wants that but what you believe in would make it impossible to become reality.

It's not about immigration. It's about the economy (stupid) What I believe in is impossible with the people we have running the country/world . f*** the banks. Instead of bailing them out, put the money into house building, green or renewable energy or subsidising decent pay.

If the banks were not bailed out what would have happened? Would society have fallen apart? I doubt it. Banks that came in to take over would have made damn sure they didn't lend to all and sundry and resold and resold toxic debts.

Any time there's a recession or austerity the smokescreen of immigration is brought out to deflect from what the real issues are. People are getting so foammy mouthed at the 'Muslamics' and Poles and Rumanians that they are blind to what is happening.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 08 Feb 15 11.15pm
Quote nickgusset at 08 Feb 2015 9.44pm It's not about immigration. It's about the economy (stupid) What I believe in is impossible with the people we have running the country/world . f*** the banks. Instead of bailing them out, put the money into house building, green or renewable energy or subsidising decent pay. If the banks were not bailed out what would have happened? Would society have fallen apart? I doubt it. Banks that came in to take over would have made damn sure they didn't lend to all and sundry and resold and resold toxic debts. Any time there's a recession or austerity the smokescreen of immigration is brought out to deflect from what the real issues are. People are getting so foammy mouthed at the 'Muslamics' and Poles and Rumanians that they are blind to what is happening. Saying feck the banks is pointless....Though a discussion on what would have happened without the bailouts would be interesting....If there is anyone knowledgeable enough out there to put forward an opinion. As for being against immigrants or blaming them I've already answered that. It's a continual disfigurement against the actual argument..Or maybe Nick you just don't read these replies...It's a disfigurement designed to paint people into corners that don't exist. I'm not against immigration.....I'm against open door immigration with no set numbers....The free movement of peoples.....Yeah, I'm not particularly for the wealthy British taking the piss in Spain and France either....The one foot in and one foot out brigade. I want to go back to being in control of our borders.....Not closing the door to Poles or Muslims.....That's a caricature and not fair. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Feb 2015 11.26pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

08 Feb 15 11.15pm

Quote nickgusset at 08 Feb 2015 9.44pm

Saying feck the banks is pointless....Though a discussion on what would have happened without the bailouts would be interesting....If there is anyone knowledgeable enough out there to put forward an opinion.

As for being against immigrants or blaming them I've already answered that.

It's a continual disfigurement against the actual argument..Or maybe Nick you just don't read these replies...It's a disfigurement designed to paint people into corners that don't exist.

I'm not against immigration.....I'm against open door immigration with no set numbers....The free movement of peoples.....Yeah, I'm not particularly for the wealthy British taking the piss in Spain and France either....The one foot in and one foot out brigade.

I want to go back to being in control of our borders.....Not closing the door to Poles or Muslims.....That's a caricature and not fair.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Feb 2015 11.26pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 08 Feb 15 11.25pm
Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 9.43pm I'm not stereotyping you.I go merely on what you have written in your posts.If your analysis is more varied/different than your posts,am happy to read and consider it. Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 10.21pm) You do in my opinion stereotype and you have in regards to me. As I say, you do what you yourself complain about and it's hypocritical. I answered your implication of me holding racist views on the previous page...You apparently haven't read it.....I'm offended by what you said....I thought we had moved on and I tried to do that in a post to you but then you repeated your opinion... Anyway I've responded and now I see you in a different light. As for Thatcher's council house selling scheme....Yes I've always criticised that......But this was over thirty years ago and not one government dealt with the damage from it.....Then Labour allowed...via the EU...the flooding into the country of poor Eastern Europeans...By proxy restricting the access to housing to the working classes. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Feb 2015 11.40pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

08 Feb 15 11.25pm

Quote legaleagle at 08 Feb 2015 9.43pm

I'm not stereotyping you.I go merely on what you have written in your posts.If your analysis is more varied/different than your posts,am happy to read and consider it.

Edited by legaleagle (08 Feb 2015 10.21pm)

You do in my opinion stereotype and you have in regards to me. As I say, you do what you yourself complain about and it's hypocritical.

I answered your implication of me holding racist views on the previous page...You apparently haven't read it.....I'm offended by what you said....I thought we had moved on and I tried to do that in a post to you but then you repeated your opinion... Anyway I've responded and now I see you in a different light.

As for Thatcher's council house selling scheme....Yes I've always criticised that......But this was over thirty years ago and not one government dealt with the damage from it.....Then Labour allowed...via the EU...the flooding into the country of poor Eastern Europeans...By proxy restricting the access to housing to the working classes.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Feb 2015 11.40pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Topic Locked

Page 171 of 311 < 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

ukip (LOCKED)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors