UKIP

[roaminblue]

It is a vicious circle though, we have had the argument before that mass immigration is required as we have an ageing population and immigration in itself leads to ecomomic growth, put immigrants age and require pensions and obviously nhs schools housing needs much more funding

Do the worlds highest populated countries cope better than the others? i wouldn't have said so

It is a vicious cycle, you are correct. You are right, immigration do require penisons in the future, and will require NHS (although statistically the net immigrant is younger, and takes less out of the healthcare system than the indigenous) - but lets, for one second assume that function follows form, and that those in the future do take out the NHS and the pension system at a future date. However, at least for, the time being, we have one side of the book balanced. That is, for the immediate term with increased population, we will have liabilities covered for a certain amount of time. Whereas a decrease in immigration is going to drive down the assets, while liabilities are increasing. With immigration, we may at least be able to drive up the assets.

But thats a short-term solution, of course.

As for your second point, it depends how you look at it. China has a huge population, in a decade and a half they will have overtaken the US as the biggest economy in the world; INdia, also, will soon be in 3rd place, even nigeria (by 2050) is estimated to be in the g20, whereas UK will be sliding further down the scale.

Also, the world has never, historically seen anything like the growth (measured in terms of GDP) as we have experienced in the last several decades; further, we have never had such good medical care.

What we are going to experience now is moving into completely unprecedented territories.

The only way I can see this situation being solved is a regional political union (as I alluded to above) where more people pay taxes - this includes countries with low birth rates and high birth rates. This means the tax purse is weighted equally across all nations, freedom of movement and immigration won't matter because the tax is centralised, the cost is also centralised.

Or, (and I think this is more likely) a huge downsizing in the state, private healthcare, private pensions, private education. THe state cannot afford it, so it will be left to businesses. Businesses who provide to those who can afford it, maybe some businesses will implement a model such as akerloffs baseline, whereby the rich still subsise the poor, but it will be done on a for-profit basis, ensuring a government doesn't have the financial burden itself.

 

[The perfect fumble]

"Nigel Farage may seem genial but his party is anything but. The polls tell us that many voters are tempted to vote Ukip at the next election, while others dismiss them as a joke – but the prospect of them gaining more power in Europe is no laughing matter"

Forget Europe we are coming to Westminster, that's where the battle is now. Keep slinging the mud, it didn't work at the Euro elections and it won't work in May either.

That's right! One more push! You're nearly there!...

 

[Blue Maverick]

In relations to pensions, if they want everyone to have a decent liveable pension why not take at source to supplement the state one? You have no choice, it is made for you, no excuses later, if you never see the money you won't miss it in the long run.

 

[hilts]

It is a vicious circle though, we have had the argument before that mass immigration is required as we have an ageing population and immigration in itself leads to ecomomic growth, put immigrants age and require pensions and obviously nhs schools housing needs much more funding

Do the worlds highest populated countries cope better than the others? i wouldn't have said so

It is a vicious cycle, you are correct. You are right, immigration do require penisons in the future, and will require NHS (although statistically the net immigrant is younger, and takes less out of the healthcare system than the indigenous) - but lets, for one second assume that function follows form, and that those in the future do take out the NHS and the pension system at a future date. However, at least for, the time being, we have one side of the book balanced. That is, for the immediate term with increased population, we will have liabilities covered for a certain amount of time. Whereas a decrease in immigration is going to drive down the assets, while liabilities are increasing. With immigration, we may at least be able to drive up the assets.

But thats a short-term solution, of course.

As for your second point, it depends how you look at it. China has a huge population, in a decade and a half they will have overtaken the US as the biggest economy in the world; INdia, also, will soon be in 3rd place, even nigeria (by 2050) is estimated to be in the g20, whereas UK will be sliding further down the scale.

Also, the world has never, historically seen anything like the growth (measured in terms of GDP) as we have experienced in the last several decades; further, we have never had such good medical care.

What we are going to experience now is moving into completely unprecedented territories.

The only way I can see this situation being solved is a regional political union (as I alluded to above) where more people pay taxes - this includes countries with low birth rates and high birth rates. This means the tax purse is weighted equally across all nations, freedom of movement and immigration won't matter because the tax is centralised, the cost is also centralised.

Or, (and I think this is more likely) a huge downsizing in the state, private healthcare, private pensions, private education. THe state cannot afford it, so it will be left to businesses. Businesses who provide to those who can afford it, maybe some businesses will implement a model such as akerloffs baseline, whereby the rich still subsise the poor, but it will be done on a for-profit basis, ensuring a government doesn't have the financial burden itself.

Good post fella and i agree with the outcomes although i don't find either of them palatable, the point about china though and you can certainly throw in the USA and India is that a large economy and large population if anything seems to widen the gap between rich and poor, i would say the poorest members of the UK are still better than those countries

I think our GDP is about the 6th best in the world, in relation to population we should be doing very well but for whatever reason we are not, our infrastructure should be among the best in the world really

 

[argyle]

Labour is the party to vote for if you are a net recipient of other peoples money in the form of benefits or wages from a state sector job.

For the tax paying working class Labour are useless, so why not give UKIP a try?

I think I know the answer to this, is it because it's a wasted vote on a one trick pony that only panders to small minded xenophobes?

Agreed. Go on any UKIP/EDL forum and it's just small minded bigots blaming immigrants, Muslims and Europe for everything that's wrong in their life. The best is when they cite the Daily Mail/Express as their source for such things.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Labour is the party to vote for if you are a net recipient of other peoples money in the form of benefits or wages from a state sector job.

For the tax paying working class Labour are useless, so why not give UKIP a try?

I think I know the answer to this, is it because it's a wasted vote on a one trick pony that only panders to small minded xenophobes?

Agreed. Go on any UKIP/EDL forum and it's just small minded bigots blaming immigrants, Muslims and Europe for everything that's wrong in their life. The best is when they cite the Daily Mail/Express as their source for such things.

When social solidarity is all but gone, when trade unions are weakened to the point of irrelevance and job security is a thing of the past, it's no wonder people are scared to bits. Along comes a beer swilling city boy and tells them to blame it on a Polish plumber and, sadly, some do.

 

[adrian99]

THe problem I have with all of this immigration commentary (well, one of the problems) is that no one seems to tackle the thorny issue that our governments liabilities are, and will continue, to grow at an exponential rate. Due in no small part to lower birth rates and greater medical care.

The proportion of people aged 65 and above will grow a YoY, thats a simple fact.

THis puts pressure on health care, pressure on hospitals, pressure on state owned care homes, and not least of all, huge pressure on the cost of public pensions.

Now, how is this counteracted? Increase birth rates? Increase immigration? How do we offset the required outgoings with required incomes (afterall, every party is screaming about the deficit and has been doing for years).

The other solution I can see is greater political union within the EU, a Supra-national European tax rather than sovereign, and redistribution where neccessary in terms of healthcare (etc). Of courses that is not desirable to a lot of people, so can't see that happening.

So where does that leave us? unfortunately we need immigration. We don't breed enough to balance our assets and our liabilities.

For savvy investors with a more long-term horizon, theres probably an opportunity, though.

We don't need immigration at the levels we see today and certainly not uncontrolled unskilled immigration. This is why UKIP would bring in a points based immigration system similar to the Australian model that allows the best and the brightest to come here, those that are needed and can contribute the most to society and the exchequer. This system would also make all applicants equal no matter where they apply from in the world, as opposed to the current system that allows predominately white Europeans free entry into the UK but has a different set of rules for the rest of the world the majority of whom are not white.

If we allow the current immigration waves to continue what do we do when every square metre of the country is covered by houses built to accommodate these people and their offspring.

UKIP are not saying that we don't need immigrants, what we are saying is that we need those that have the skills Britain needs, those that can contribute to the Exchequer and that the numbers must be controlled by laws created and voted for in our own parliament not created for us by unelected commissioners in in Brussels.

 

[adrian99]

Labour is the party to vote for if you are a net recipient of other peoples money in the form of benefits or wages from a state sector job.

For the tax paying working class Labour are useless, so why not give UKIP a try?

I think I know the answer to this, is it because it's a wasted vote on a one trick pony that only panders to small minded xenophobes?

Agreed. Go on any UKIP/EDL forum and it's just small minded bigots blaming immigrants, Muslims and Europe for everything that's wrong in their life. The best is when they cite the Daily Mail/Express as their source for such things.

OK please point me in the direction of a UKIP forum where this is the case, in addition shown me UKIP policy that backs up this ridiculous claim. You are getting desperate trying to link UKIP and other groups, UKIP are UKIP I can only speak for UKIP.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

THe problem I have with all of this immigration commentary (well, one of the problems) is that no one seems to tackle the thorny issue that our governments liabilities are, and will continue, to grow at an exponential rate. Due in no small part to lower birth rates and greater medical care.

The proportion of people aged 65 and above will grow a YoY, thats a simple fact.

THis puts pressure on health care, pressure on hospitals, pressure on state owned care homes, and not least of all, huge pressure on the cost of public pensions.

Now, how is this counteracted? Increase birth rates? Increase immigration? How do we offset the required outgoings with required incomes (afterall, every party is screaming about the deficit and has been doing for years).

The other solution I can see is greater political union within the EU, a Supra-national European tax rather than sovereign, and redistribution where neccessary in terms of healthcare (etc). Of courses that is not desirable to a lot of people, so can't see that happening.

So where does that leave us? unfortunately we need immigration. We don't breed enough to balance our assets and our liabilities.

For savvy investors with a more long-term horizon, theres probably an opportunity, though.

We don't need immigration at the levels we see today and certainly not uncontrolled unskilled immigration. This is why UKIP would bring in a points based immigration system similar to the Australian model that allows the best and the brightest to come here, those that are needed and can contribute the most to society and the exchequer. This system would also make all applicants equal no matter where they apply from in the world, as opposed to the current system that allows predominately white Europeans free entry into the UK but has a different set of rules for the rest of the world the majority of whom are not white.

If we allow the current immigration waves to continue what do we do when every square metre of the country is covered by houses built to accommodate these people and their offspring.

UKIP are not saying that we don't need immigrants, what we are saying is that we need those that have the skills Britain needs, those that can contribute to the Exchequer and that the numbers must be controlled by laws created and voted for in our own parliament not created for us by unelected commissioners in in Brussels.

Help me out here, I'm not interested in slinging I just want to understand the logic behind what you say.

You want us to have a system like the Australian system? I hear this system lorded a lot by UKIP and its supporters, so being the kind of person who wants to have sensible policies implemented I looked into Australian migration and why this seems to be the holy grail of people arguing for reduced immigration.

The information I found surprised me to say the least and makes me question whether you actually know what you're talking about or if you're just using soundbite language you've heard other people use.

Australia accepted 244,000 immigrants into the country last year. This is extremely similar to the number let in by the UK which is also circa 240,000 for the tax year 2013-14.

Proper Source (not the Telegraph/Mail): ABoS

Of course there is more than one glaring difference between the UK and Australia. The first being that Australia has a much lower population, in fact looking at net migration per capita you find Australia's is nearly twice as high.

Source: Wiki

So I guess my questions can be summarised as this:

1. Why have you seemingly chosen to design an immigration system on a completely different country that is sparsely populated, and the size of a continent?
2. If this system allows twice as many people per capita into the country, how is it going to reduce the strain on public services?
3. Whilst slightly different to the immigration issue as a whole, are you aware that a lot of people see Australia's policy towards asylum seekers as not just cruel and abhorrent, but actually in contravention of basic human rights and illegal? If so why would we want to follow this system, are you condoning their treatment of asylum seekers?

Source: Open letter signed by 190 academics accusing the Aus federal government of an unlawful and inhumane policy on asylum seekers

I'm in genuine desire of a proper debate here, like I say I'm interested in addressing the issue and not slinging.

 

[BigJimLittleJim]

Labour is the party to vote for if you are a net recipient of other peoples money in the form of benefits or wages from a state sector job.

For the tax paying working class Labour are useless, so why not give UKIP a try?

I think I know the answer to this, is it because it's a wasted vote on a one trick pony that only panders to small minded xenophobes?

Please explain this ludicrous observation.

Recent political history tells us this is so, Um Bongo, Um Bongo.



That was an explanation which rhymes, I am feeling pretty good about myself right now, thanks for the opportunity.