Labour introduced that in 2007/8. If you think it isn't controlled ask some large companies about recruiting skilled staff, and don't believe the crap in the papers

Because vilifying immigrants is what its all about instead?



Unfortunately, a lot of people who have a "problem" with immigration don't really understand it, and for example would allow say Luis Suarez (an immigrant) to come here without complaining, because he plays football, yet moan about say A N Other from India who is a highly skilled computer professional, when he may be filling a post that keeps perhaps hundreds of UK citizens in work. That may be an extreme example, but thats what it comes down to, a one fits all rejection of foreigners.



Kylie Minogue should go back to Oz too

(although she's ok to stay as she's pretty

)

And no law is being proposed that would force clergy to marry gay people. So Farage is claiming to be opposed to something that isn't being even remotely proposed.



And people believe him.



So how stupid do you want?



And on the basis of the [iTelegraph[/i forums over recent months, many* of those who have been declaring that they would vote UKIP were opposed, pure and simple, to equal marriage. FFS, some were calling for "civil disobedience" to 'defend' marriage. Is this the sign of rational, thinking people?







I gave a specific anecdote of my own father's idiocy. Do you think his attitude was coherent on the basis of what I posted?



Do you consider the conflation of Europe and the EU is a sign of intelligent debate?



Is it the sign of great intellects to assume that any problems that the UK has are the fault of the EU, however flawed those political institutions are?



Now you may well not agree with the above and I have not suggested that you do – but which of the above do you not consider to be signs of irrational attitudes?







* Note: that was "many" not 'all'.

OK this is a true case - my parents are in their 70s have always voted Tory but they have a some serious issues

1. They will be vote for the Torys whilst Cameron is in charge - the gay marriage thing was a final straw, call them what you will, but their view is as valid as yours.

2. The incumbent Tory MP is a homosexual - again this is something they find hard to deal with especially in a seat predominantly filled with young families.

3. They come from a generation where having the vote is precious.

4. No way they will vote Labour, the will not vote Liberals because they see their part in the current government so what is left - UKIP or BNP so they will probably vote for UKIP.



This is why people are voting UKIP because the government is rubbish and Labour don't have a credible platform.



The issue about gay marriage is more about your sensitivity than anything it is a non-issue to virtually everyone else. Gay people have been having relationships since creation why is there a sudden need to formalise it? The whole point of marriage was to formalise matters for procreation and removing the stigma from the offspring. That is also now a non-issue thankfully.

I'd suggest that their right to an opinion is as valid as mine or anyone else's, but unless they can provide a sound, reasoned explanation of why equal marriage is a bad thing (including actual evidence of what damage equal marriage would do to the institution of marriage, their own marriage, the country etc etc) then their view does not have the same validity as a view that does (from whatever side of the argument).







Okay. They have a view. They are entitled to that. But on what basis do they link sexuality – and "young families"? Is it a rational one?







I certainly hope that such a feeling is not limited to a single generation.







Well, there are other parties.







I mentioned the [iTelegraph[/i forums for a reason. For people there, declaring that they would vote UKIP precisely because of the issue of equal marriage, and for those calling for "civil disobedience" over the same matter, it clearly is not just a "non-issue".



And you're contradicting yourself anyway, since you've said, in this same post, that it was enough of an issue for your own parents that it was "the final straw".

Everyone except your intolerant parents, apparently.

I've ong said this about party politics, if we could chose specific policy we'd be better off, UKIP are abhorrent for their views on equality, Labour are equally abhorrent on their socialist ideals, as are the Conservatives for protecting greed. I wish I could criticise the Limp Dems, but they don't seem to stand for anything.

I don't even think we have that choice at present.



As mentioned earlier (in this thread or another?) one of Blair's first acts was to ditch Clause 4 on public ownership, which was, in effect, a way of taking the Labour Party away from any standard socialist philosophy.



Now it could be said that that was an inevitable consequence of the previous election defeats with more obviously socialist manifestos and/or because of the representations of the mass media (again, see previous post).



But once in power, Blair and his government continued with privatisation and deregulation – general approaches that I doubt anyone would seriously describe as socialist. And 'the third way' was arguably an attempt to step away from the left v right of previous decades (in this case, largely by furthering the neo-liberal agenda on the one hand while also investing in public services in the hope of mitigating the worst effects of 'trickle down' or lack thereof).



One of Brown's first acts as Chancellor was to deregulate the Bank of England – hardly a sociality action. And PFI, having been begun under Major, was carried on with a vengeance under Blair – and disastrously, if we look at the problems that have occurred as a direct result.



I go back to what I said previously: I think that part of the problem is that the 'old' rather obvious policies of the mainstream parties have changed on economics (not just that, but let's stick with that) and many of the electorate don't know what is what any more. And do not feel that there is a meaningful choice among the main parties – simply because they are so similar on so much. Conservatism, in the sense that it was used when I was growing up, is as much a thing of the past as socialism in the sense of old Labour.

A couple of points



The vast majority of the British population are descended from immigrants, we are a mix of every nation we have ever come into contact with. From the Romans, Saxon, Jutes , Vikings, Angles, Normans, French, Dutch , Hugenots, Indians, Africans etc etc. Thats why we have so much in common with the USA, we are mongrel nations and we need the diversity it brings to enhance our future. When they say they want to stop immigration they actually mean they want to select who comes here based on whatever white right wing half wits they deem we need to bring in.



UKIP won seats against the two Tory parties in the major Tory parties heartland, that will be more of a worry to them then it will Labour. Any splitting of the right wing will help Labour in every area and I dare say we will see some reaction to this ahead of the next Gen Election.



I am also a federal European, yes I do believe a United States of Europe is a good thing long term and one we should all aim for. The armed forces of Europe are moving closer togther and share resources as the world changes, we move into the new world or we stagnate and become an impoverished island attached to a Federal Europe.



or we could revert back to the Kingdom of Northumberland

My wife family are mostly Polish, My great grandfolks were Norwegian. I've no issue with immigration

Open borders though is stupid, why should already stretched resources be stretched further by an influx of more Eastern Europeans?



I wouldn't care if their country was Great Britain part 2, they ate English breakfasts, spoke English and were exactly the same as me, we can't accomodate them, it's that simple to me.



Open borders without a vastly improved infrastructure is just stupid, our Welfare State/Healthcare/Education are already at breaking point.



I wouldn't mind a bit of selfish insular politics for a while until we sort out our own house.



Money for starving Africans, ignore starving people on the streets of UK, Aid money for Indian children yet we have 'child poverty' in the UK.

Billions in debt but give it away to all and sundry.

No issue with 'foreigners' i do have issue with more people regardless when they are not sustainable.



Another thing the European Union, what's the need for centralising everything, one currency, one economic policy etc etc.

Can't we just all draw up benefical trade agreements and just leave it at that?

Is anyone proposing it?

I can live anywhere in the EU without any paperwork or a decent education, is that not open enough?