Oh the boredom of answering insults of people who have been scarred in previous debates. Never mind...I'm bored so I will.

This sentence is itself patronizing. So you're telling me not to do what you are yourself doing....How intelligent.

I questioned the validity of his views when he himself doesn't vote.....I didn't say he can't have an opinion, I questioned the point of it. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say.....However apparently not to you so your conclusions are built upon a false premise....And I suspect motivated by emotion.

You give a very generalistic response to a specific point. The point concerned 'capping rents' of organisations who had themselves built houses. This isn't done for the reason I explained...Or so I imagine it isn't. My point is that this isn't going to appeal to developers....It hasn't been done....Again for the reasons I explained. It would be another obstacle to house building.

Thanks for the advice.....That's two situations where you are imagining yo were me in one post.....Maybe you should just be happy with your Slovakian self Dave.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2014 9.25pm)

Oh the boredom of answering insults of people who have been scarred in previous debates. Never mind...I'm bored so I will.

This sentence is itself patronizing. So you're telling me not to do what you are yourself doing....How intelligent.

I questioned the validity of his views when he himself doesn't vote.....I didn't say he can't have an opinion, I questioned the point of it. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say.....However apparently not to you.

You give a very generalistic response to a specific point. The point concerned 'capping rents' of organisations who had themselves built houses. This isn't done for the reason I explained...Or so I imagine it isn't. My point is that this isn't going to appeal to developers....It hasn't been done....Again for the reasons I explained. It would be another obstacle to house building.

Thanks for the advice.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2014 9.20pm)

As just a simple racist and fascist having voted UKIP, I'm keen for the enlightened on here to explain something that has eluded me.

In the 90s, post-recession, the economy was growing (driven by debt) strongly and net migration into the UK was about 20-30k average per year.

Why is it, 20 years later, we suddenly require a migrationary level 10X that, for an economy that is very much not booming?

What has changed? Why do we suddenly need so many more people coming into the country for work purposes? Why does this level of immigration demonstrate that the economy is "on the up" (as has been claimed by many espousing the virtues of the influx, including Vince Cable).

The UK population increased by about 6.5 million from 1991 to 2012, considerably from the Labour flood. But does that require 10X higher level of immigration?

I'm looking at graphs such as this, for example:

[Link]

When did EU freedom of movement come into effect anyway, out of interest?[/quote]

1st January 1993. It came in with the same freedoms for the movement of goods, services and capital. We have gained massively from all four freedoms.

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!

My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.

(Member of the School of Optimism 1969-2016 inclusive)

Slip of the keyboard.

George Bush made the same error, to be fair.

The concept of free movement of persons came about with the signing of the Schengen Agreement in 1985 and the subsequent Schengen Convention in 1990, which initiated the abolition of border controls between participating countries. Being part of the EU legal and institutional framework, Schengen cooperation has gradually been extended to include most EU Member States as well as some non-EU countries