Not like the rest at all ?

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed, tens of billions of pounds, not to mention the cost in lives, not to mention subsidising the failed gamblers of the financial sector, but none of that is an argument against high taxes, it's an argument against inappropriate expenditure of tax revenues.

... but I wonder why you even bother mentioning something which in comparison is small change on the government's part, except in the minds of Daily Mail readers and maybe UKIP supporters for whom no doubt it's a cosmic scandal... you started so well and then here comes that telltale aversion to anything that smacks of "welfare", unless it's for something that you yourself directly benefit from, like "cultural funding". What you call a "libertarian" attitude is I think better characterised as "selfish".

Why tag a party as xenophobic? Because its leader is on record as saying he wouldn't want a bunch of Romanians moving in next door to him. If that isn't xenophobic what is it?

He never said that. Period. That's the basis of your argument gone.

I agree with your augmentation to my examples of the perfidious use of tax payers money. But I have to insist that it is inextricable to the collection of tax in the first place. Wake up and realise why the establishment want more and more taxation. Cut the problem off at source, don't let them have the money in the first place.

I have given a list of things that I feel are fundamental to the best society possible, for all people. Why you have turned it into an ad hominem attack, says more about you than me.

[Beef Oven!]

But Nigl Farage is an MEP - he must have known that it's a typical load of Express garbage. So must Gerald Batten, when he said: “This is the start of yet another piece of ideologically motivated crackpot legislation from the EU."

**************************

"The Daily Express reports today under the headline ‘Now EU “Crackpots” demand gypsy MPs’ that, if a resolution from the European Parliament becomes law “all the political parties in the UK will have to impose female gypsy candidates on the electorate and get them into Parliament.”

This story is ludicrous. First and foremost – and leaving aside the questionable terminology used by the Express – the EU only has the powers delegated to it by the Member States in unanimously agreed Treaties. Those powers do not include the power to intervene in how candidates for national elections are nominated. So it is quite simply impossible that the EU could pass such a law.

The story has been described by an MEP in a letter sent to the Express as “fabricated from beginning to end.”

The agreed European Framework for Roma inclusion looks into ways of helping integrate traveller communities into education, employment, healthcare and housing. It says nothing about political representation, let alone quotas.

What the MEPs concerned are trying to do is draw attention to the exclusion and discrimination faced by Roma communities all around Europe, around 90% of whom live below the poverty line."


What Mr Batten should have said was: “This is the start of yet another piece of ideologically motivated crackpot 'legislation' from the Daily Express."

All I can say is that I am not familiar with the Daily Mail or the express, If I read a paper, I tend to read The Times, The Gurdian and the Telegraph and the FT.

[Beef Oven!]

Its intent alone ensures that it self-tags thus; there's no need for anyone else to do it for them.

It's not only offensive, however, but also impossible in practice because UKIP, even if it could form a majority government, would be unable to exercise total control over who comes to UK, because there are already many hundreds of thousands of people living outside UK who are entitled to exercise at any time their right of abode in UK and a UKIP government could do nothing to stop them. This problem would be twofold, in terms both of EU citizens who currently have a right to come to UK while it's an EU member state and of British citizens living abroad whose right of abode un UK in declared in their passports; OK, once UKIP had severed connections with EU, it might try to prevent EU citizens coming to UK (although it would almost certainly wind up in court for breach of contract towards them), but it would be entirely powerless to stop those British citizens living abroad whose rights of abode in UK are inalienable. Failure on UKIP's part to recognise these salient points make UKIP look rather silly, in my view.

Although I disagree with your conclusion and can't share your view, I agree that there are many low-voltage anomalies here. However, I must say that the wider view is more important than the little outlier-cases and idiosyncrasies, in my view.

[jean]

Why tag a party as xenophobic? Because its leader is on record as saying he wouldn't want a bunch of Romanians moving in next door to him. If that isn't xenophobic what is it?

He never said that. Period. That's the basis of your argument gone.

Mr Farage said he thought people would be concerned if a group of Romanians moved in next door...

...In an interview for LBC Radio on Friday, Mr Farage was asked what the difference was between having a group of Romanian men and German children as neighbours.

"You know what the difference is," Mr Farage replied.

He added: "I was asked if a group of Romanian men moved in next to you, would you be concerned? And if you lived in London, I think you would be."

So he didn't exactly say he wouldn't want Romanians living next door, but that 'you' wouldn't.

Splitting hairs a bit, aren't you?

[Anna]

All I can say is that I am not familiar with the Daily Mail or the express, If I read a paper, I tend to read The Times, The Gurdian and the Telegraph and the FT.

You may not be but the Daily Mail and The Express are the papers of choice of UKIP supporters (I don't have the figures to hand at the moment but I can find them)
So, if the Mail and the Express spread the lies fed to them by UKIP it's odds on that their readers accept them as Gospel!

Edit:
Red Top Tabloids: (Sun/Mirror etc) 31%
Mids: (Mail/Express etc) 32%
Upmarket: (Guardian et al) 11%
Other: 5%
None: 20%

And a few more stats while we're at it:

Percentage of UKIP voters under 40: 15%
Percentage 50+: 71% (it peaks for over 60s)
Home owners/mortgate: 78%
Religious: 59%
51% of Ukip voters think immigrants and their families (including those born here) should be encouraged to leave Britain.

[Beef Oven!]

Mr Farage said he thought people would be concerned if a group of Romanians moved in next door...

...In an interview for LBC Radio on Friday, Mr Farage was asked what the difference was between having a group of Romanian men and German children as neighbours.

"You know what the difference is," Mr Farage replied.

He added: "I was asked if a group of Romanian men moved in next to you, would you be concerned? And if you lived in London, I think you would be."

So he didn't exactly say he wouldn't want Romanians living next door, but that 'you' wouldn't.

Splitting hairs a bit, aren't you?

The BBC seemed to have done better. They asked him if people should be concerned if Jamaicans or Nigerians moved in next door, and they added 'blacks and Irish', to the questioning. Nigel replied that people would not be concerned if the foregoing people moved in next door. He re-iterated that people would be concerned (about Romanians), especially if they'd read the newspapers carrying stories about Romanian crime gangs (the very newspapers that have criticised him, and carried 2-page stories on crime-waves) concerning crime and cited 7% of all crime being committed across the whole of the EU by 240 Romanian gangs.

That is not xenophobia, or xenophobic.

I think it troubles us to talk about such matters. In my opinion, our white liberal conscience freezes us. We create xenophobia-arguments, just as we created Islamaphobia-arguments following 9/11 in order not to have any discussion about whether any of it concerned faith/religion.

The fact is that there is nothing xenophobic about what Nigel said. The distastefully invidious questions from the BBC about Jamaicans, Nigerians, 'blacks and Irish', only served to show that Nigel is not xenophobic. Watch it yourself.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27474099


Splitting hairs? RB is very fastidious. He says what he means.

[ahinton]

The BBC seemed to have done better. They asked him if people should be concerned if Jamaicans or Nigerians moved in next door, and they added 'blacks and Irish', to the questioning. Nigel replied that people would not be concerned if the foregoing people moved in next door. He re-iterated that people would be concerned, especially if they'd read the newspapers carrying stories about Romanian crime gangs (the very newspapers that have criticised him, and carried 2-page stories on crime-waves) concerning crime and cited 7% of all crime being committed across the whole of the EU by 240 Romanian gangs.

But crime is crime - and Romanians are not the only criminals nor, more importantly, do they or any other criminals have to be resident in UK in order to commit crimes against other UK residents. Increasing amounts of certain kinds of crime neither recognise nor respect borders. That argument is therefore little better than specious.

[Beef Oven!]

But crime is crime - and Romanians are not the only criminals nor, more importantly, do they or any other criminals have to be resident in UK in order to commit crimes against other UK residents. Increasing amounts of certain kinds of crime neither recognise nor respect borders. That argument is therefore little better than specious.

Why add to the problem by having open borders?

[ahinton]

Why add to the problem by having open borders?

How would open borders deter criminals who commit crimes across borders without needing to concern themselves with such borders? What you've mentioned so far is your views on legal immigration; whether or to what extent borders might be "closed" by law will make no difference whatsoever to illegal immigrants, criminals and otherwise, who are prepared to ignore such strictures. The borders that once existed are in any case very different today from what they used to be, largely for technological reasons and because far more people travel across them more easily and more frequently than was once the case.

How "closed" would you (as a self-confessed UKIP supporter) believe borders should be (and by this do you mean only borders between UK and other countries?) and how "closed" do you believe that UKIP thinks they should be?

Furthermore, would you - and, as far as you are aware, does UKIP - advocate such border "closures" as a case of one-way traffic? (i.e. stopping people coming into UK but imposing far less stringent restrictions or none at all on people leaving UK).

[Beef Oven!]

How would open borders deter criminals who commit crimes across borders without needing to concern themselves with such borders? What you've mentioned so far is your views on legal immigration; whether or to what extent borders might be "closed" by law will make no difference whatsoever to illegal immigrants, criminals and otherwise, who are prepared to ignore such strictures. The borders that once existed are in any case very different today from what they used to be, largely for technological reasons and because far more people travel across them more easily and more frequently than was once the case.

How "closed" would you (as a self-confessed UKIP supporter) believe borders should be (and by this do you mean only borders between UK and other countries?) and how "closed" do you believe that UKIP thinkks they should be?

It stands to reason that if you have no way of discriminating between the people that you'd want in the country, and the people you wouldn't, then.............God give me strength!

[Beef Oven!]

So, if the Mail and the Express spread the lies fed to them by UKIP it's odds on that their readers accept them as Gospel

So that's how it works! But, does that happen before, or after they pass through the looking glass?

[ahinton]

It stands to reason that if you have no way of discriminating between the people that you'd want in the country, and the people you wouldn't, then.............God give me strength!

Any strength that may or many not be given to you by any god won't conceal your avoidance of the answers here.

Some criminals commit crimes against people living in UK from locations outside UK; no border controls will stop that.

There is no justifiable reason to deny anyone access to Britain purely on the grounds of where they come from (would you, for example, advocate refusal of entry into Britain to a British citizen born and living in Romania?).

It's not in any case just about "discriminating between" the people that a government would want in UK nd those that it wouldn't; what would your view be of a government those chose to try to deny entry to anyone with a right of abode in UK purely on the grounds of where they wee coming from when entering UK?

You don't say anything about how border "closure" might or should affect those wishing to leave UK permanently or temporarily for whatever reason.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, but it is also the view of many people with modest incomes.

Example: newly qualified teacher with student loan to pay off, salary £25k,deductions (which is to all intents and purpoes the marginal tax rate) including pension contribution run at almost 50%.

A personal view that funding of the arts from public money is desireable, (which I hold), is not inconsistent with a view that mixed economies to work successfully require their citixens to have reasonable levels of personal disposable income.

If indeed they do work - but, are there any mixed economies worthy of the term in existence any more today? I rather gathered they'd been rendered historically redundant by the dominant liberal global ideological moving forwardness we've all been enjoying for the past 40 years or so.

[Beef Oven!]

Any strength that may or many not be given to you by any god won't conceal your avoidance of the answers here.

Some criminals commit crimes against people living in UK from locations outside UK; no border controls will stop that.

There is no justifiable reason to deny anyone access to Britain purely on the grounds of where they come from (would you, for example, advocate refusal of entry into Britain to a British citizen born and living in Romania?).

It's not in any case just about "discriminating between" the people that a government would want in UK nd those that it wouldn't; what would your view be of a government those chose to try to deny entry to anyone with a right of abode in UK purely on the grounds of where they wee coming from when entering UK?

You don't say anything about how border "closure" might or should affect those wishing to leave UK permanently or temporarily for whatever reason.

Have you ever been murdered!!!?

[jean]

The BBC seemed to have done better. They asked him if people should be concerned if Jamaicans or Nigerians moved in next door, and they added 'blacks and Irish', to the questioning. Nigel replied that people would not be concerned if the foregoing people moved in next door. He re-iterated that people would be concerned (about Romanians), especially if they'd read the newspapers carrying stories about Romanian crime gangs (the very newspapers that have criticised him, and carried 2-page stories on crime-waves) concerning crime...

I missed the bit where he told the people who'd been influenced by these newspapers that they really should not llisten to such biased and xenophobic 'news' stories.