Well by living in the crap hole that is Lewisham you are at least living out your principles....I lived in Catford right next to it for a few years...I wonder if the cinema is still there.

My surname is Stirling, to answer the location name point.

Anyway you think that large scale inward immigration benefits the areas it impacts....Well, on a 'feeling' basis it will differ from individual to individual by I seriously differ.

'The places most tolerant of immigration are those most directly impacted by it.'

If you forgive me but this point is a little silly. In London over the last thirty years there has been significant flight from the capital of Londoners. My family was one of them. We left, like many, because we didn't like what London was turning into.

Now it stands to reason that if a lot of people who don't like what's happening leave and you have increasingly large numbers of new people...mostly foreign coming in then you are going to end up with a city that mostly contains foreigners and those who are happy living as a minority amongst foreigners.

So that point is....boringly simplistic and easy to explain.

What isn't easy to explain is the economic benefits or costs of immigration. This is because accessing a non biased report isn't easy. You think it results in a net benefit I don't. I have seen reports by lefty academics that say it's a benefit and I've seen reports suggesting it's a drain. MigrationWatch UK use the same data and state pretty much the opposite....obviously what is factored in results in different conclusions.

I can't be sure who the liars are with that one...I will just say I don't know on the economic front.

But what I will say is that increasing a population each year without being able to increase infrastructure spending in line with the increase in effect punishes the working classes. They also don't factor in the social cohesion point that many like me make....apparently my views don't matter.....Well, until there is a 'leave' or 'remain' tick box that is....Thank you Cameron it was the only decent fecking thing you ever did!

Those who blame governments for the disaster of not increasing funding in line with it create a false argument because the increases in tax takes are just not there in line with population increase....over the year it's a population increase the size of the city of Newcastle......someone is lying about something.

As a teacher I've seen the damage and extra difficulties the rate of population increase has had on teaching....I can only imagine what it's been like in other sectors....I've read the stories.

I think those who accuse others of 'casual racism' are apart of the divisive nature of this debate. It stigmatise debate and widen the divide not decrease it....It closed down debate for many years and in effect what you did was create Ukip by causing resentment.

What you call 'casual racism' is probably more preference. I know some call that racism but as they are rather easy with their labels I call them plonkers.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Apr 2017 2.49am)

Paul Mason's view is that Labour's collaboration with, amongst others, the SNP, will stop ugly 'nationalism'.

Words turn to ashes in your mouth. How do you stop 'nationalism' by getting into bed with the ugliest and shrillest nationalists in the country?

[Link]

Funny how now the Lib Dems in coalition with the Tories wasn't so bad after all, which is why I voted for them. Watered down conservatism, though perhaps harsher cuts were needed at some point and better earlier than before more interest mounts the debt up even more.

National debt can only be managed within a growth strategy. Further cuts would only have made the situation worse as debt would increase as a percentage of GDP and create a vicious cycle of recession and further cuts. This is what has happened as debt has increased massively since 2010 as a share of GDP, but the increased borrowing hasn't been used effectively. It's been used to give tax breaks to big business, to cut the top rate of income tax and on and inheritance tax cuts.

I was the same, thought the coalition worked well.

But surely Labour are just as culpable for what you claim as they were in power for a substantial part of the post 1979 era?

I certainly think Labour didn't do enough. They halted the huge increase in inequality seen between 1979 and 1997, but they didn't reverse it. They reduced the lower rates of income tax but did nothing about the higher rates until after the GFC, which has subsequently been reduced by the Tories. They also increase NICs on everyone, but the biggest burden on low to middle incomes.

But government spending did increase as a proportion of GDP under Labour steadily up until the GFC, and debt as a proportion of GDP were exactly the same as in 1997 when the GFC started. The serious failing was deregulation of banks and financial markets and then a lack of coherent response in 2009/10.

They also could and should have done a lot more to improve productivity. The insistence that 50% of people go to University at the expense of other ideas of how to improve educational achievement and prepare people for work is one example I can think of.

Problems with the UK's balance of payments stem from 1979 and Thatcher's destruction of manufacturing. it has also got significantly worse since 2010. Labour did little though in terms of industrial policy or addressing productivity to help. There are obviously external factors which influence this such as the increased availability of cheap imports, but Germany manages to run a surplus and has a far higher share of it's economy still in manufacturing. People can point to financial markets in London being so dominant, but outside of London there are 55m people and huge scope for increasing productivity and investing in manufacturing. Thatcher dismantled much of what did exist in the North and didn't bother replacing it with productive industry. Just said said there's no such thing as society and washed her hands of them.