Exactly, the voters will go with whoever is promising to sort what ever is gripping thier sh1t the tightest, and most areas where UKIP are making massive strides are areas where eastern Europeans have just been dumped and (through no fault of thier own) are turning the place in to a s*** hole.

I watched the Romanians are coming last night, awful how people haveto live in a very poor country, absolutley terrible, but being homless here in the UK seems to be a better prospect than being homeless in Romania, and that may well be the case.

However why should someone who has saved and paid for his house etc etc have the value demolished because a half way house for romanian gypsies has been built at the end of their road.

The bigger picture, which is that the addition of smaller poorer countries to the EU puts strain on the more wealthier countries and that is all fair and above board (some would say) however when it starts effecting peoples homes and where they live something has to change, or the people will vote for whoever is saying they will change it.

I'm no politician but surely making it less appealing for Romaninas to rock up here with their hand out has to be the only rational starting point, and no matter how dumb ass the rest of UKIPS policies may be, thier stance on immigration and the EU will win them bucket loads of seats in areas that are effected directly by mass immigration from eastern Europe, and those areas are increasing day by day.

I would not be surprised at all if within a few years they are the main challengers to the Torys, Labour are the very epitomy of a joke Party, even thier leader looks like a muppet (bert off of Seasame Street).

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

The left never abandoned them, they betrayed the working classes through the initial work of Kinnock, then Smith and finally Blair in the production of New Labour, a right of center political party that was essentially 'friend of business', claiming the lie of a 'third way', in reality they were more right wing than Ted Heaths Conservative government, and relied on a spin of being 'the party of the people'.

The rise of both UKIP and the Greens, has its basis in the betrayal of Labour of the working classes - Not just 'white', but all working class people.

Throwing a few bones to civil rights groups doesn't make you left wing. The poverty experienced by working class ethnic groups became greater under new labour, as they utilsied and exploited them for their corporate masters.

Those areas 'which eastern Europeans' have made into 's**t holes', aren't because of the migrants, its down the failure of local authorties and councils to fulfill their obligations, instead money was clawed back to pay for tax cuts and popularist policys aimed at winning elections.

Labour betrayed the working classes.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I think that's a fair amount of truth in that.

Immigrants by themselves aren't to blame...But an undirected distribution into the workforce is...The affects on housing and infrastructure make life their undoubtedly less pleasant for those unable to move....A mass ghettoisation of immigrants into areas that previously didn't have them can't be portrayed as something everyone should feel positive about....More competition for jobs and housing.

As for blaming various layers of government....Is it really realistic to expect them to be able to build the housing and infrastructure at the levels required to match the intake.

No it isn't really...So really it's about signing up for 'free movement' and not negotiating properly on transition controls that has really kicked the least able to adapt right squarely in the balls.....So yeah Labour and certain parts of the right (not elements of the old left) well and truly screwed the weakest of the British working classes...(Sure some of them are feckless but they are our feckless youth...Plus many just want a fair chance).....Instead governmental decisions designed for the business world effectively pulled up the ladder on them.

Still many on the left still support Labour's behaviour and support 'free movement' because they think that this is a racism argument and will jerk that knee if there is any discussion of the practical affects of immigration.

But they certainly made friends in the business world.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Feb 2015 3.14pm)

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

The Unions and Labours left f***ed themselves in the seventies by bringing British manufacturing and heavy industry to a grinding halt through their greed, laziness and envy.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Noted and understood that your comments last night weren't actually responding to the post of mine made immediately before your response and included by you as the only prior post above your response,as opposed to much earlier posts you say you were in fact responding to and had already previously responded to,I think.

I agree people can make up their own minds and if some think you have hit the nail on the head or scored a TKO, well,everyone is entitled to their opinion.Others may or may not form a different opinion.

But the issue itself (as opposed to anything relating to you and me) has IMO an inherent "TKO" of its own.If an individual asserts they have concerns about EU immigrants settling here,because amongst other things, of cultural differences from people living in England/the UK , and where the majority of such immigrants are caucasians (using the common UK understanding of the term) of the same "race" as both the majority of the population already living in England/The UK and the individual in question, it is hard to see how such concerns could possibly amount to racism since "race" wouldn't enter into the equation,as opposed to ethnicity (culture/history etc) which plainly would.

But,if other posters disagree and think an allegation of racism is even possible to imply(or be inferred) from use of the term "ethnicity" in criticising a person expressing concerns relating to cultural differences of immigrants who are generally of the same "race" as that person,that's entirely a matter for them.

You and I disagree about UKIP, its merits and whether it is part of the solution or part of the problem,but regardless of that,I trust you would agree that not every criticism of a UKIP supporter's views on immigration and cultural differences can be legitimately and automatically responded to by suggesting the critic is alleging racism (though I am sure you would accept there have been worrying instances of some UKIP supporters and politicians expressing views that might reasonably be termed racist). There are,IMO, plenty of other reasons for criticising UKIP, but that's another matter for another post or poster

But,I agree Stirling,enough between you and me about who said what. Otherwise,we may both have a legitimate technical knock out against us on grounds of boredom

Edited by legaleagle (18 Feb 2015 11.10pm)

You personally already have. What a complete lot of self-aggrandising waffle you post on this site. Do you take half hourly selfies also?

Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..