This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
legaleagle 25 Nov 14 9.26pm | |
---|---|
Stirling, aren't you being a little unreasonable here? Would you be taking the same line if it was an article about shenanigans/policy within the Labour party on a "hot" issue? A perfectly legitimate article in the Torygraph and bear in mind Reckless is hardly an ordinary party supporter, but a recently elected UKIP MP who stood on a UKIP policy platform and as such one of their most prominent public figures.. Not sure your point about immigrants who are legally here and repatriation works. By definition, if UKIP in a position to make Government policy, they'd pass a law making those legally here no longer legally here (after a transition period or not) and repatriate them. ps.Yes,who are "you lot" out of interest? Edited by legaleagle (25 Nov 2014 9.27pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 25 Nov 14 11.01pm | |
---|---|
Quote legaleagle at 25 Nov 2014 9.26pm
Stirling, aren't you being a little unreasonable here? Would you be taking the same line if it was an article about shenanigans/policy within the Labour party on a "hot" issue? A perfectly legitimate article in the Torygraph and bear in mind Reckless is hardly an ordinary party supporter, but a recently elected UKIP MP who stood on a UKIP policy platform and as such one of their most prominent public figures.. Not sure your point about immigrants who are legally here and repatriation works. By definition, if UKIP in a position to make Government policy, they'd pass a law making those legally here no longer legally here (after a transition period or not) and repatriate them. ps.Yes,who are "you lot" out of interest? Edited by legaleagle (25 Nov 2014 9.27pm)
Clue - the British working class hold he intellectual left in contempt. Tell Ed that. It might help him.
"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 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
legaleagle 25 Nov 14 11.56pm | |
---|---|
Matt, the law is whatever it happens to be at any one time, ie if parliament passed a law that people lawfully here could be repatriated, since the law would have changed, it would be lawful. Leave to remain, as its called, has always been subject to certain caveats anyway. At present, any such attempt to implement such a change in the law would likely flounder because the Courts would hold that its incompatible with EU rules and the Human Rights Act/European Convention on Human Rights, the latter two bęte noirs of the right. But, not unreasonable to think if UKIP were in a position to make Government policy that we would have left the EU, revoked the Human Rights Act and derogated from the European Convention. By the way,I don't think its just Labour that is held in contempt, its all of the established parties. What is interesting is that polls indicate 70% of UKIP voters support renationalisation of certain industries. But, immigration/fear of the alien "outsider" is the big issue that people alight upon as the primary source of their economic and social woes. Its happened here historically before ie re Jewish immigration 100 years ago and we now see that was tosh in terms of the real reasons for economic and social woes at that time, and in other countries in the 20th century. It would be good and interesting to see Labour actually tackle that issue head on in a positive way, but I doubt they will. I would hate to see Labour tack rightwards on immigration to get votes. If they lose votes as a result, so be it. That approach is more in keeping with David "we are just like UKIP and agree with them but vote for us" Cameron's recent tacks to the further right. You characterise strong immigration concerns , I think, as a legitimate major concern (as opposed to an expressed concern of many). I characterise it as a diversion from the underlying issues why people's situations makes them feel feel dissatisfied. We will have to disagree about the Telegraph article. I suspect if it was a similar article about Labour inconsistencies etc, you too might not be adverse to viewing it in a positive light?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 26 Nov 14 12.09am | |
---|---|
Quote legaleagle at 25 Nov 2014 11.56pm
Matt, the law is whatever it happens to be at any one time, ie if parliament passed a law that people lawfully here could be repatriated, since the law would have changed, it would be lawful. Leave to remain, as its called, has always been subject to certain caveats anyway. At present, any such attempt to implement such a change in the law would likely flounder because the Courts would hold that its incompatible with EU rules and the Human Rights Act/European Convention on Human Rights, the latter two bęte noirs of the right. But, not unreasonable to think if UKIP were in a position to make Government policy that we would have left the EU, revoked the Human Rights Act and derogated from the European Convention. By the way,I don't think its just Labour that is held in contempt, its all of the established parties. What is interesting is that polls indicate 70% of UKIP voters support renationalisation of certain industries. But, immigration/fear of the alien "outsider" is the big issue that people alight upon as the primary source of their economic and social woes. Its happened here historically before ie re Jewish immigration 100 years ago and we now see that was tosh in terms of the real reasons for economic and social woes at that time, and in other countries in the 20th century. It would be good and interesting to see Labour actually tackle that issue head on in a positive way, but I doubt they will. I would hate to see Labour tack rightwards on immigration to get votes. If they lose votes as a result, so be it. That approach is more in keeping with David "we are just like UKIP and agree with them but vote for us" Cameron's recent tacks to the further right. You characterise strong immigration concerns , I think, as a legitimate major concern (as opposed to an expressed concern of many). I characterise it as a diversion from the underlying issues why people's situations makes them feel feel dissatisfied. We will have to disagree about the Telegraph article. I suspect if it was a similar article about Labour inconsistencies etc, you too might not be adverse to viewing it in a positive light?
"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 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
legaleagle 26 Nov 14 9.23am | |
---|---|
1. I believe your comments about my post reflect a opinion you are entitled to hold but which objectively adds very little to the debate. That's a pity. It would have been interesting to see you actually engage with the points I made. 2. I believe we were seeing a disillusionment by many with all the established parties which (though its been growing for perhaps 30 years) is greater than at any time in the past 75years. 3.I believe many people feel immigration is a major problem and an important reason for their woes 4. I believe immigration is not the underlying reason for the economic and social woes faced by many. 5.I believe UKIP's politicians have a great deal in common with the politicians of the established parties and though seemingly offering a panacea to many, its an illusion. 6.I believe 6 beliefs are more than enough at this time of the day! Edited by legaleagle (26 Nov 2014 10.00pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 26 Nov 14 6.31pm | |
---|---|
Our Nige wants to class his own kids as migrants... Wonder if he thinks they should be deported.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 27 Nov 14 10.38pm | |
---|---|
Earning his corn as usual. Our Nige doesn't turn up for his own bill!
Jean-Claude Juncker is accused of presiding over industrial-scale avoidance by multinational companies during his tenure as president of Luxembourg. But even with support from the, errr, far-right French National Front, the motion went down to a 461 votes to 101 loss. Could it be that hypocrite Farage had second thoughts on fronting up a motion on the issue? In 2013 the UKIP leader was exposed for setting up an Isle of Man-based tax avoidance scheme, Farage Family Education Trust 1654, with the express intention of avoiding inheritance tax on his estate. Edited by nickgusset (27 Nov 2014 10.39pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Red-Blue-Yellow Surrey 27 Nov 14 11.12pm | |
---|---|
Quote nickgusset at 27 Nov 2014 10.38pm
Earning his corn as usual. Our Nige doesn't turn up for his own bill!
Jean-Claude Juncker is accused of presiding over industrial-scale avoidance by multinational companies during his tenure as president of Luxembourg. But even with support from the, errr, far-right French National Front, the motion went down to a 461 votes to 101 loss. Could it be that hypocrite Farage had second thoughts on fronting up a motion on the issue? In 2013 the UKIP leader was exposed for setting up an Isle of Man-based tax avoidance scheme, Farage Family Education Trust 1654, with the express intention of avoiding inheritance tax on his estate. Edited by nickgusset (27 Nov 2014 10.39pm) They're all as fcuking bad as each other......so he's more interested in amassing wealth than in behaving in a morally correct manner, his party have a history of wanting tax breaks for the rich and big business plus benefit cuts that even the Coalition have fought shy of.....how the poor working class sods who vote UKIP can ever believe that the party has any of their interests at heart is beyond me.
I also enjoy posting on: Love Everton Forum, the Acceptable Face of Scouse Football. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Pawson Palace Croydon 28 Nov 14 9.54am | |
---|---|
Tax avoidance = legal Tax evasion = illegal They are all as bad as each other, but given the option I think we'd all avoid paying what is a very ghastly tax IMO. To be taxed on wealth that has already been taxed upon really does not sit right with me.
Pride of South London |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 29 Nov 14 8.59am | |
---|---|
Interesting graphic in the Telegraph. This is what today's UK immigration heatmap looks like next to UKIP voting hotspots. Attachment: heatmap.jpg (26.86Kb)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Red-Blue-Yellow Surrey 29 Nov 14 9.16am | |
---|---|
Quote nickgusset at 29 Nov 2014 8.59am
Interesting graphic in the Telegraph. This is what today's UK immigration heatmap looks like next to UKIP voting hotspots.
I also enjoy posting on: Love Everton Forum, the Acceptable Face of Scouse Football. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hoof Hearted 29 Nov 14 11.13am | |
---|---|
Quote nickgusset at 29 Nov 2014 8.59am
Interesting graphic in the Telegraph. This is what today's UK immigration heatmap looks like next to UKIP voting hotspots.
People outside of the affected areas being frightened of their areas being swamped by immigrants and voting for UKIP. Places like Boston where the white indigenous population live cheek by jowl with foreign workers that pick crops and because of the sheer volume of people now living there cannot get to a GP for weeks, or get their children in a local school. People keep banging on about the economic benefits of immigrants, but if you live in Boston, Bradford, Bristol, Birmingham, etc., you are more aware/affected by the consequences of a sudden dumping of foreign people in your locality and the problems it creates. The UK is a finite land mass and at what stage do we call time on allowing hordes of people to settle here? Edited by Hoof Hearted (29 Nov 2014 11.17am)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.