Poll: General election voting poll round 3

[ubersonic]

However right now my view is that uncontrolled immigration is the largest and continued threat to social justice - it's denying the poorest in societies access to jobs, housing, healthcare, pay rises - therefore UKIP as they're the only party who I think genuinely want to do something about this issue, and are proposing policies that may actually achieve it one day.

As the problem is uncontrolled non-EU immigration, what are UKIP proposing to tackle it that the Tories havent?

 

[D.P.]

My vote goes to whomever I think will do the most to achieve social justice - which I define as having a less unequal distribution of wealth, opportunities and privileges in society (note: I don't want an equal distribution of these things). Normally this would mean voting Labour, or perhaps LibDem which I sometimes did. However right now my view is that uncontrolled immigration is the largest and continued threat to social justice - it's denying the poorest in societies access to jobs, housing, healthcare, pay rises - .

That has all been disproven so you can go back to voting Labour if you want.

 

[scorza]

As the problem is uncontrolled non-EU immigration, what are UKIP proposing to tackle it that the Tories havent?

Who says that's the problem? The biggest problem in my opinion is the migration of unskilled and semi-skilled workers which has caused the biggest disruption to the most vulnerable in society.

 

[V F]

Politicians have caused disruption and vulnerability to society.

 

[elmarko]

My vote goes to whomever I think will do the most to achieve social justice - which I define as having a less unequal distribution of wealth, opportunities and privileges in society (note: I don't want an equal distribution of these things). Normally this would mean voting Labour, or perhaps LibDem which I sometimes did. However right now my view is that uncontrolled immigration is the largest and continued threat to social justice - it's denying the poorest in societies access to jobs, housing, healthcare, pay rises - therefore UKIP as they're the only party who I think genuinely want to do something about this issue, and are proposing policies that may actually achieve it one day. With the Conservatives you always get the impression that they quite like uncontrolled immigration because it helps business leaders to have an army of reserve employment on hand. That's not to say I agree with everything UKIP - as you've identified their economic policies don't really fit in with my views.

I'd say that voting UKIP if those are your views is certainly counter-productive.

Economic policies trump the best of intentions & economically many of their policies are frankly absurd.

They speak in droves about cuts to X, Y, Z tax rate - scraping inheritance tax, pulling huge numbers of people out of the lower tax bracket, reducing tax on the middle earners - to achieve these some taxes will need to rise, or services will need to be cut.

The issue is, there is absolutely no indication as to what will fund these cuts, to quote the commentator.

"UKIP’s spending plans make Labour look as fiscally prudent as Milton Friedman. UKIP believes “tax should be as low as possible” (with the abolition of inheritance tax and taking those on minimum wage out of income taxation completely) and pledges to "reduce tax and business costs to stimulate the economy", with a firm belief that "council taxes should go down, not up".

In terms of spending cuts, EU membership and foreign aid appear to be the only cuts forecast as necessary. Under a UKIP government, Farage et al pledge to avoid cuts to frontline policing (whilst doubling the amount of prison places), to create a new wave of new grammar schools, and to oppose cuts to frontline doctors, surgeons, dentists and nurses. Not to be forgotten, the party has also committed to improving road care and upgrading public transport".

Either UKIP has discovered the illusive money tree which Labour needed under Gordon Brown’s premiership, has found a way to finance huge tax cuts solely through the abolition of foreign aid and local government cuts, or its economic policies are not viable. It’s likely the latter."

That has all been disproven so you can go back to voting Labour if you want.

This also.

 

[ubersonic]

That has all been disproven so you can go back to voting Labour if you want.

Yeah but that was the last thread, it's gonna need explaining all over to the people who only just arrived

 

[D.P.]

Not forgettign things like exiting the EU will be very expensive and will result in reduced GDP. UKIP economics policies are utterly insane and simple don't add up however far you stretch your imagination. Cut taxes, increase spending while reducing GDP, ehh, how?

TBH, the immigration policy is one of the least hilarious of their manifesto, especially considering now they wont even limit immigration Farage sees the economic benefits of immigration.

 

[elmarko]

Not forgettign things like exiting the EU will be very expensive and will result in reduced GDP. UKIP economics policies are utterly insane and simple don't add up however far you stretch your imagination. Cut taxes, increase spending while reducing GDP, ehh, how?

TBH, the immigration policy is one of the least hilarious of their manifesto, especially considering now they wont even limit immigration Farage sees the economic benefits of immigration.

That's actually the thing.

Even the Green party have a more financially sound manifesto (as they are not opposed to taxing the section of society with the most wealth, or corporations).

UKIP on the other hand want to cut taxes for everybody (including businesses) & expand all public services.

 

[Judgeneo]

That's actually the thing.

Even the Green party have a more financially sound manifesto (as they are not opposed to taxing the section of society with the most wealth, or corporations).

UKIP on the other hand want to cut taxes for everybody (including businesses) & expand all public services.

Thankfully, neither will actually get into power.

I will probably still vote UKIP though, as I strongly believe the UK will be on a stronger path outside of the EU. I'd probably switched to labour by now if they had offered a referendum, and thats saying something for their policies because I think they have a more incompetant leadership than the tories.

 

[scorza]

I'd say that voting UKIP if those are your views is certainly counter-productive.

Economic policies trump the best of intentions & economically many of their policies are frankly absurd.

They speak in droves about cuts to X, Y, Z tax rate - scraping inheritance tax, pulling huge numbers of people out of the lower tax bracket, reducing tax on the middle earners - to achieve these some taxes will need to rise, or services will need to be cut.

The issue is, there is absolutely no indication as to what will fund these cuts, to quote the commentator.

"UKIP’s spending plans make Labour look as fiscally prudent as Milton Friedman. UKIP believes “tax should be as low as possible” (with the abolition of inheritance tax and taking those on minimum wage out of income taxation completely) and pledges to "reduce tax and business costs to stimulate the economy", with a firm belief that "council taxes should go down, not up".

In terms of spending cuts, EU membership and foreign aid appear to be the only cuts forecast as necessary. Under a UKIP government, Farage et al pledge to avoid cuts to frontline policing (whilst doubling the amount of prison places), to create a new wave of new grammar schools, and to oppose cuts to frontline doctors, surgeons, dentists and nurses. Not to be forgotten, the party has also committed to improving road care and upgrading public transport".

Either UKIP has discovered the illusive money tree which Labour needed under Gordon Brown’s premiership, has found a way to finance huge tax cuts solely through the abolition of foreign aid and local government cuts, or its economic policies are not viable. It’s likely the latter."

/shrug I don't care - UKIP don't have any chance of winning the General Election so their economic policies will never see the light of day. If they get in as part of a coalition then you'd expect their anti-EU/immigration policies to be at the forefront of any formal agreement.

This also.

This being some dubious academic study I presume? The problem is that I just don't believe these studies anymore, they don't make any sense logically and they don't tie in with what I can see with my own eyes. Wasn't it a similar dubious study that said the UK would only receive 13,000 Polish immigrants a year post 2001?

 

[estebanrey]

That has all been disproven so you can go back to voting Labour if you want.

No it hasn't. Housing is obviously directly correlated to population size increase for a start, no stat can disprove something that is self-evident.

In terms of general societal equality I'm not aware of any stats that show immigration hasn't had a negative effect on this. I've seen ones that show that on the whole they provide an 'economic surplus' to the country, but the economy doing well and having equal distribution of wealth are not synonymous or intricately linked.

 

[Judgeneo]

No it hasn't. Housing is obviously directly correlated to population size increase for a start, no stat can disprove something that is self-evident.

In terms of general societal equality I'm not aware of any stats that show immigration hasn't had a negative effect on this. I've seen ones that show that on the whole they provide an 'economic surplus' to the country, but the economy doing well and having equal distribution of wealth are not synonymous or intricately linked.

Indeed, most studies I've seen show a marginally negative effect on wages for the lowest paid, and the greatest rise for the most well paid.

 

[deuse]

Not forgettign things like exiting the EU will be very expensive and will result in reduced GDP.

Can you not stop spreading rubbish that you've read on pro EU site.

"Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides for a Member State to leave the EU if it wishes, without needing the permission of the other Member States"

The FACT is we do no more trade with the EU when we wasn't in it.. FACT.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Nicola Sturgeon is touring Perthshire in the First Minister’s chauffeur driven car.
Suddenly a cow jumps out into the road. They hit it full on and the car comes to a stop.

Nicola in her usual jaunty manner, says to the chauffeur : " You get out and check - you were driving."

The chauffeur gets out, checks and reports that the animal is dead.

" You were driving, go and tell the farmer," says Nicola, ”I can’t afford to be blamed for anything.”

The chauffeur walks up the drive to the farmhouse and returns five
hours later totally plastered, his hair ruffled and with a big grin on
his face.

" My God, what happened to you ?" asks Nicola.

The chauffeur replies : " When I got there, the farmer opened his best
bottle of malt whisky, the wife gave me a slap-up meal and the daughter
made love to me."

" What on earth did you say?" asks Nicola.

" I knocked on the door and when it was answered, I said to them, I'm
Nicola Sturgeon’s chauffeur and I've just killed the cow."

 

[D.P.]

No it hasn't. Housing is obviously directly correlated to population size increase for a start, no stat can disprove something that is self-evident.

In terms of general societal equality I'm not aware of any stats that show immigration hasn't had a negative effect on this. I've seen ones that show that on the whole they provide an 'economic surplus' to the country, but the economy doing well and having equal distribution of wealth are not synonymous or intricately linked.

That is far too a simplistic view of things.

The housing problem exists regardless of immigration, cutting immigration down to zero will not resolve the housing situation, in fact it might makes things worse with a reduced economy and smaller treasury.



Saying immigration is causing a housing issue is like saying new parents are causing a housing issue. Shall we make it illegal for people to have babies, or set a quota on how many babies should be born? Or should we actually tackle thee underlying problems?

 

[escape sanity]

"Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides for a Member State to leave the EU if it wishes, without needing the permission of the other Member States"

The FACT is we do no more trade with the EU when we wasn't in it.. FACT.

We do "no more trade" with the EU than we did before 1973 when you measure it as a proportion of our overall trade. In real terms, we do do more trade with the EU now than we did before 1973.

When you consider the growth in markets such as India and China and even Japan which was still growing when we joined the EU, the fact that the EU share has remained stable as opposed to going down is surprising.

 

[D.P.]

Indeed, most studies I've seen show a marginally negative effect on wages for the lowest paid, and the greatest rise for the most well paid.

The marginal negative effect on wages is actually on the immigrants themselves. The unskilled immigrant workforce tends to reduce their own salary through increased immigration but not to any significant effect. The reason for the minimal effect is an unskilled job that pays minimum wage will always be an unskilled job paying minimum wages, wages can't go lower legally and the wages wouldn't go higher without immigration.

 

[D.P.]

Can you not stop spreading rubbish that you've read on pro EU site.

"Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides for a Member State to leave the EU if it wishes, without needing the permission of the other Member States"

The FACT is we do no more trade with the EU when we wasn't in it.. FACT.

And that fact is why it is so important to be in the EU, because the EU has managed to keep trade competitive in the global economy despite the BRICs nations, US, Japan and other developing countries increasing trade massively.

 

[ubersonic]

No it hasn't. Housing is obviously directly correlated to population size increase for a start, no stat can disprove something that is self-evident.

Between 2011-2012 the UK population rose 419,900. Net migration was 177,000, the were 499,331 deaths and 813,200 births*

This shows that net migration only accounts for 1/5 of the population increase, housing would still be an issue if migration was 0, just slightly less of one, migrants on average make a net contribution to the country (especially EU migrants who on average are more beneficial to the economy than the average native) so UKIP's plan to reduce/limit them would actually hurt the UK and have little effect on population/housing.

Oh course you would know all this if you had read the thread this one continues from...



*Numbers won't add up exactly as the last two are figures for 2012 not 2011-2012, however they are approximately correct to a few thousand.

 

[estebanrey]

That is far too a simplistic view of things.

It's simplistic because numbers are by definition simple to understand. We have more people who need/want housing than there are houses.

You either reduce demand (by limiting population growth) or build more house. One of those options is finite (clue it's the second one).

The housing problem exists regardless of immigration, cutting immigration down to zero will not resolve the housing situation, in fact it might makes things worse with a reduced economy and smaller treasury.

So unless you can completely fix something with one solution, all contributing factors that can limit the damage should be ignored?

Having a speed limit of 30 mph hasn't prevented people being knocked down and killed so might as well have no speed limits at all right?

You stated that immigration has no effect on the shortage of housing, now you are saying they do but they're not the only problem. Which is it?

Saying immigration is causing a housing issue is like saying new parents are causing a housing issue.

Well that's because both of those things are true. The difference being we have 16-21ish years to prepare for that child to want/need another house. An immigrant appears out of nowhere and we have no control or anyway of predicting how many will come in 10-20 years time.

Shall we make it illegal for people to have babies, or set a quota on how many babies should be born?

Clearly, having a controlled immigration policy which every country in the world outside the EU has is not morally equivalent to having a policy on childbirth like China.

Again your logic is because we can't solve a problem we should ignore and not try to fix any of it's causes just because I can name you other things which contribute to it. It's silly.

Or should we actually tackle thee underlying problems?

How do you tackle the natural instinct to procreate?