The 2015 General Election

[blandy]

I don't get why it's ok for Indians, French, Germans and Australians to turn up, but not Poles.

The Poles are magnetic, though, everyone knows that. And, like, Poles repel.

[blandy]

...without doubt most of them are working cash in hand and probably don't exist on any system

With a high degree of doubt and scepticism, more like. That's just another "we all know they're at it" type UKIP statement, Tony.

[tonyh29]

 

...without doubt most of them are working cash in hand and probably don't exist on any system

With a high degree of doubt and scepticism, more like. That's just another "we all know they're at it" type UKIP statement, Tony.

 

I expected that comment to come from Snowy  how does it feel to beat him to it ?

 

 

However in this instance I know it to be true because unlike 99% of their customers I actually get out my car and have a chat with them , I even get coffee and a biscuit now when I go  ...  I don't doubt the majority pay their taxes and so on but these guys who i was specifically talking about don't  as they have told me how they operate , about 5 of them are even living above the garage in a room  ... though to be 100% fair  , I couldn't say if they exist in the system or not , that was my own assumption

Edited April 8, 2015 by tonyh29

[sharkyvilla]

Just a hypothetical question, if the EU didn't exist and you were in charge of starting a new union up with the 28 states currently in it, would you choose to have complete freedom of movement?

Yes. Absolutely, yes.

May I ask why? I think there should be favourable conditions, but there should be some restrictions that governments should be allowed to introduce. Is there a set number of countries/population you would consider to be too many to make freedom of movement viable, (for example should they extend it to all of Europe and even beyond) and do you think the US and Australia for example have the wrong policy?

[blandy]

 

 

...without doubt most of them are working cash in hand and probably don't exist on any system

With a high degree of doubt and scepticism, more like. That's just another "we all know they're at it" type UKIP statement, Tony.

 

I expected that comment to come from Snowy  how does it feel to beat him to it ?

 

 

However in this instance I know it to be true because unlike 99% of their customers I actually get out my car and have a chat with them , I even get coffee and a biscuit now when I go  ...  I don't doubt the majority pay their taxes and so on but these guys who i was specifically talking about don't  as they have told me how they operate , about 5 of them are even living above the garage in a room  ... though to be 100% fair  , I couldn't say if they exist in the system or not , that was my own assumption

 

It feels good .

I thought you'd meant all the Polish people in the UK, not just the ones you've spoken to, sorry. Re-reading, your post is a bit ambiguous about that and could be taken either way. I should have known I'd pick the wrong way. Doh!

But anyway, a bunch of hard working people, who pay their taxes and that - it's not so bad, is it?. I completely accept that gazillions of people turning up put a massive strain on services etc. or can do, especially when the Gov't is cutting all the services.

999 service reponse times have halved, Doctors say the NHS iswithering away, the Tories bury a report they commissioned because

In a hugely damaging move for the government, the European Union Committee of the House of Lords, chaired by former Tory minister Lord Boswell, comes close to saying that ministers tried to cover up the findings, which do not support David Cameron’s claims that the EU is “becoming a state” and has already accrued excessive powers.

By contrast, the so-called “balance of competences” review – hailed by William Hague in 2012 as the “most extensive analysis of the impact of UK membership of the EU ever undertaken” – found no area with a case for transferring powers back from Brussels.

....The accusations that the report has been buried will also infuriate the UK’s EU partners and could make the job of renegotiating this country’s terms of membership far more difficult for Cameron, if he wins the election, as it will be known in other European capitals that the London civil service believes there is no real case for repatriating powers.

Commenting on his committee’s highly critical report into the way the government has handled the review, Boswell also tore into it for spending up to £5m on the project, only to make no effort to pull its findings together and make them accessible to a public that wants to know the truth about the UK’s relationship with the EU.

“There is no point spending up to £5m of public money on an excellent review and then burying it. People need to know the facts about the UK-EU relationship,” Boswell said.

[snowychap]

May I ask why? I think there should be favourable conditions, but there should be some restrictions that governments should be allowed to introduce. Is there a set number of countries/population you would consider to be too many to make freedom of movement viable, (for example should they extend it to all of Europe and even beyond) and do you think the US and Australia for example have the wrong policy?

I can't see how one can intend to have an economic union and yet maintain restrictions on the movement of workers within that union.

On the wider point, I think borders are pretty silly things.

[chrisp65]

OK, some need permits. Germans and French don't, we appear to think they're ok.

I'm still confused as to whether the problem is where they come from?

 

All I'm hearing is too many east europeans. Which suggests we are happy with all the others? In fact, if others need a permit or a visa, and we are worried about an infrastructure under pressure, why have we allowed the number of Indians to go up by a quarter of a million in 10 years? The number of South Africans here has gone up by over a third, Bangladeshis, up nearly 200,000 and on and on.

 

If we have control over these, as suggested, and we have problems with the numbers coming in, perhaps that's the real scandal?

 

I'm not a fan of completely open borders but I'm also not against any particular group.  

[tonyh29]

OK, some need permits. Germans and French don't, we appear to think they're ok.

You speak for yourself

[Condimentalist]

May I ask why? I think there should be favourable conditions, but there should be some restrictions that governments should be allowed to introduce. Is there a set number of countries/population you would consider to be too many to make freedom of movement viable, (for example should they extend it to all of Europe and even beyond) and do you think the US and Australia for example have the wrong policy?

I can't see how one can intend to have an economic union and yet maintain restrictions on the movement of workers within that union.

On the wider point, I think borders are pretty silly things.

On the wider point, that's an interesting philosophical position. Borders are certainly flawed but they also serve a number of useful functions. What society do you envisage without them?

[bickster]

So todays piece of nonsense appears to be Trident. The Right appear to be using the scare tactic of saying that under Labour we'd lose Trident because they'd be in an alliance / coalition with the SNP and the SNP are dead set against Trident. Well that all true but are they also saying that The Tories would vote against renewing Trident just because Labour would be in power, even though both their policies on the issue might as well be identical? They don't seem to mention the second bit though, strange that.

[chrisp65]

So todays piece of nonsense appears to be Trident. The Right appear to be using the scare tactic of saying that under Labour we'd lose Trident because they'd be in an alliance / coalition with the SNP and the SNP are dead set against Trident. Well that all true but are they also saying that The Tories would vote against renewing Trident just because Labour would be in power, even though both their policies on the issue might as well be identical? They don't seem to mention the second bit though, strange that.

 

did you by any chance just listen to that Michael Fallon interview on R4?

 

Bloody weird.

 

Apparently we dare not vote Labour as Ed Milliband is a hard and vindictive grubby leader that will stop at nothing to gain power. A man hell bent on doing all in his evil powers to be supreme leader. Not the usual message about incompetent Ed we usually get fed. But apparently, on trident, even though Labour have said it is clear we are keeping it and there will be no compromise - the tories know he's lying. How do they know? Well that's easy, look how he treated his nice honourable decent brother.

 

That just made no sense whatsoever and I'm really disappointed the interviewer didn't just straight out ask Fallon if he was having some sort of breakdown.

[Demitri_C]

So todays piece of nonsense appears to be Trident. The Right appear to be using the scare tactic of saying that under Labour we'd lose Trident because they'd be in an alliance / coalition with the SNP and the SNP are dead set against Trident. Well that all true but are they also saying that The Tories would vote against renewing Trident just because Labour would be in power, even though both their policies on the issue might as well be identical? They don't seem to mention the second bit though, strange that.

Just curious who are you planning to vote for?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Tories panicking. Nasty party in full view.

[Rodders]

serious question - why do we actually need Trident? I mean, honestly it's never going to be used, and that money could be actually invested in proper useful shit that helps people. At the very least split the funding between hospitals / schools and if you must have extra military funding in an area that's actually relevant today like computer crime etc. 

[sharkyvilla]

serious question - why do we actually need Trident? I mean, honestly it's never going to be used, and that money could be actually invested in proper useful shit that helps people. At the very least split the funding between hospitals / schools and if you must have extra military funding in an area that's actually relevant today like computer crime etc.

I know it's an unlikely scenario but Putin seems to be getting more openly bonkers by the day. Plus it really seems to piss off Scotch people.

[blandy]

OK, some need permits. Germans and French don't, we appear to think they're ok.

I'm still confused as to whether the problem is where they come from?..

To generalise horribly, for the sake of writing something different, the thing is, the Germans and the French are most liley to be working in that london, in the City  - in finance. They're likely to be rich, perhaps sending their kids to private schools and involving themselves in a certain type of English middle class type community.

 

The Poles and other East Europeans are likely to be skilled labourers - builders, plasterers, plumbers, roofers, electricians and so on, and just as likely to be in Norfolk, Lancashire or Devon as in London. They're not likely to fit in quite so well with the upper middle class set, and because London is such a melting pot, and has been for so long, the attitudes there on foreigners are markedly more positive than those in Lincolnshire etc.

 

So the people in Lincolnshire see hard working labourers doing jobs in areas where unemployment and services are an issue and Londoners hardly notice German bankers doing exactly the same things as English bankers.

 

So that's why the focus is on East Europeans more - because they are more in the areas where immigration can cause strains on local services and communities.

 

The reality though is probably that we need the plumbers and Leckies more than we need the insurance execs and stockbrokers.

[tonyh29]

serious question - why do we actually need Trident? I mean, honestly it's never going to be used, and that money could be actually invested in proper useful shit that helps people. At the very least split the funding between hospitals / schools and if you must have extra military funding in an area that's actually relevant today like computer crime etc. 

those nasty North Koreans seemed to be the reason given in the article I read !!

 

Putin has been probing our defences for a while , I doubt he's got eyes on an invasion , but I don't think it necessarily a bad thing to have a couple of tridents in reserve to make him think twice , even though I agree with you that they will never be used

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 

 

 

Nick BolesVerified account ‏@NickBolesMP

Ask yourself this. Who does Vladimir Putin want to see running Britain after 7th May?

[tonyh29]

 

OK, some need permits. Germans and French don't, we appear to think they're ok.

I'm still confused as to whether the problem is where they come from?..

To generalise horribly, for the sake of writing something different, the thing is, the Germans and the French are most liley to be working in that london, in the City  - in finance. They're likely to be rich, perhaps sending their kids to private schools and involving themselves in a certain type of English middle class type community.

 

The Poles and other East Europeans are likely to be skilled labourers - builders, plasterers, plumbers, roofers, electricians and so on, and just as likely to be in Norfolk, Lancashire or Devon as in London. They're not likely to fit in quite so well with the upper middle class set, and because London is such a melting pot, and has been for so long, the attitudes there on foreigners are markedly more positive than those in Lincolnshire etc.

 

So the people in Lincolnshire see hard working labourers doing jobs in areas where unemployment and services are an issue and Londoners hardly notice German bankers doing exactly the same things as English bankers.

 

So that's why the focus is on East Europeans more - because they are more in the areas where immigration can cause strains on local services and communities.

 

The reality though is probably that we need the plumbers and Leckies more than we need the insurance execs and stockbrokers.

 

so in a roundabout way you are confirming  my view that Labour are the party of racists as it's their core voters that you describing in your post

[tonyh29]

 

So todays piece of nonsense appears to be Trident. The Right appear to be using the scare tactic of saying that under Labour we'd lose Trident because they'd be in an alliance / coalition with the SNP and the SNP are dead set against Trident. Well that all true but are they also saying that The Tories would vote against renewing Trident just because Labour would be in power, even though both their policies on the issue might as well be identical? They don't seem to mention the second bit though, strange that.

 

did you by any chance just listen to that Michael Fallon interview on R4?

 

Bloody weird.

 

Apparently we dare not vote Labour as Ed Milliband is a hard and vindictive grubby leader that will stop at nothing to gain power. A man hell bent on doing all in his evil powers to be supreme leader. Not the usual message about incompetent Ed we usually get fed. But apparently, on trident, even though Labour have said it is clear we are keeping it and there will be no compromise - the tories know he's lying. How do they know? Well that's easy, look how he treated his nice honourable decent brother.

 

That just made no sense whatsoever and I'm really disappointed the interviewer didn't just straight out ask Fallon if he was having some sort of breakdown.

 

The brother thing is starting to piss me off now  ... first time Cameron used it in the commons it was a great put down , but then it should have been retired and looked back on fondly rather than be rolled out way past it's sell by date like a Martin O'Neil signing