Punching Nazis..

[JohnMcGreal]

Now, if the career politicians take a look at themselves and work out why they have become so very very unpopular, they might get the hang of becoming more popular and being elected again. If, on the other hand, they decide that there's nothing wrong with them and it's the electorate who need to change, then they might get another shock in four years' time.

Does someone have to parrot the ludicrous rhetoric of people like Donald Trump and Nigel Farage to become popular with large swaths of the public? Is that the best we can do?

[dsr]

Does someone have to parrot the ludicrous rhetoric of people like Donald Trump and Nigel Farage to become popular with large swaths of the public? Is that the best we can do?

No, because what I said has nothing to do with Trump being popular - he isn't. Certainly not popular enough to be elected President under 'normal' conditions What I said was that Clinton, and the political establishment with her, was so very unpopular that half the American population thought she was worse than Trump. And if such a vast number of people think you're worse than Trump, then you need to take a good look at yourself and work out what you're doing wrong.

[2 Bee Holed]

Only problem with your argument Rowls is that net migration contributes to the economy of the country.

I'm not disagreeing that causing housing/NHS issues, but you know as well as I do that decisions at a political level taken NOT to build enough houses or to provide enough services to help cope with the extra numbers don't help either.

Now Lancaster this is why I voted for Brexit; You cannot ensure sufficient housing, NHS provision (Hospitals, GP's etc), school places and the list continues, unless you know how many are coming and where they will settle.
The EU don't get this. When 500m have a right to come and live and work here, it creates problems. At the time of the referendum net immigration meant our population was increasing by 300,000 per year. That is a lot of people! They need all of the above, but where do you build/provide them?
Now I admit that only 1/2 of them were from the EU. The other half came from outside the EU, but at least we knew they were coming and could plan for it, I don't know if we do but I would assume we ask them where they intend to settle.
So that leaves 150,000 people last year who we didn't know were coming, nor were they would settle nor for how long. The EU figure could be 1,000,000 one year and 1,000 the next. How can you plan/build hospitals and school places with such fluctuations?

I do not consider this to be racist, just common sense. But I voted for Brexit, so I must be a racist.

[JohnMcGreal]

No, because what I said has nothing to do with Trump being popular - he isn't. Certainly not popular enough to be elected President under 'normal' conditions What I said was that Clinton, and the political establishment with her, was so very unpopular that half the American population thought she was worse than Trump. And if such a vast number of people think you're worse than Trump, then you need to take a good look at yourself and work out what you're doing wrong.

Really dsr? Are we ever allowed to question the general public? When did the general public become so infallible?

I agree with you to a point, though. In normal circumstances, when a politician loses an election, they have to self-reflect and look at what they can do to win the public's support in the future.

But if you're losing to Donald Trump, I think it's absolutely fair to self-reflect, but also to question some of the general public as well.

Clinton was a flawed candidate, but a good number of voters who think Donald Trump being POTUS is a good idea are also flawed.

[dsr]

The general public is not infallible, though the general public must be allowed to be wrong - a democracy where the people get the wrong answer is better (IMO) than any other form of government.

How many people voted for Clinton because they really liked her? Half the country disliked her so much they voted for Trump; and of the half that voted for her, an awful lot would have voted for her only because they hated Trump more. Bill Clinton, strange though it seemed, had people vote for him because they liked him and wanted him to be President. How many of those people has Hillary got?

[Lancasterclaret]

I do not consider this to be racist, just common sense. But I voted for Brexit, so I must be a racist.

Fair points till the above one, which is just silly. Only you know if you voted for racist reasons.

That 150,000 that is from outside the EU. Just how good have we been at controlling that? (Hint - not very)

And it hasn't been planned for anyway, and the continuing cuts in all services will just make it worse, and don't even get me started on things like staffing in the NHS and care homes.

[biggles]

Trump got a load of protest votes [kind of ironic, really]. Clinton fewer. he had the slogan 'i will make america great again'. that was all most of his voters needed to hear. trump was the guy who was going to make america great again. no-one asked 'how?' or 'what does that even mean?' because they didn't really care. their next president told them he'd do it so it must be true. america was going to boss the world again. foreigners would not take the pi.s out of america any more and they would have to contribute a lot more for world peace/security etc. no more freebies. basically, he told them what they wanted to hear. he has a lot of faults but he's not daft.

[2 Bee Holed]

Lancaster;
No I am just quoting the press. A fair proportion of the press would have you believe that Brexiteers are racists, so it would appear that I too must label myself as such. I personally don't think I am.
The Australian points system (or similar) seemed to me to be a good solution, wherein if we have a shortage of care home workers, doctors, nurses or indeed any trade they would automatically get more points.
Yes, I do worry that the 150,000 that we 'controlled' may indeed not have been very well controlled either.
However, as for the 150,000 from the EU, we had no idea about them, where they would go, who they were, what they would do or indeed if they would stay.
It needs sorting, because the pressure on housing and our services is unsustainable. I have posted before that the housing crisis is the single biggest issue facing this country and yet successive governments are failing to deal with it.
Oh and apparently, I am more likely to have a poorer background and to have been less well educated because I voted for Brexit.
Why is it that the ruling establishments and the press simply cannot get their heads around these problems?
Oh and don't even get me going on why a European Court can over rule our highest court and make us keep a 'terrorist' for 12 years when we wanted to extradite him. Or why the EU hasn't had its accounts signed off for 19-years and is amongst the most corrupt organisations in the world.

[NRC]

Now Lancaster this is why I voted for Brexit; You cannot ensure sufficient housing, NHS provision (Hospitals, GP's etc), school places and the list continues, unless you know how many are coming and where they will settle.
The EU don't get this. When 500m have a right to come and live and work here, it creates problems. At the time of the referendum net immigration meant our population was increasing by 300,000 per year. That is a lot of people! They need all of the above, but where do you build/provide them?
Now I admit that only 1/2 of them were from the EU. The other half came from outside the EU, but at least we knew they were coming and could plan for it, I don't know if we do but I would assume we ask them where they intend to settle.
So that leaves 150,000 people last year who we didn't know were coming, nor were they would settle nor for how long. The EU figure could be 1,000,000 one year and 1,000 the next. How can you plan/build hospitals and school places with such fluctuations?

I do not consider this to be racist, just common sense. But I voted for Brexit, so I must be a racist.

Just catching up with this thread, and I see beeholed has given a decent response to your point LC. I'd take it further though, it's a point I've made before lost in the swathes of threads that constitute the archive of UTC.

The concept of free labor movement across national borders is madness where either or both of the physical infrastructure capability (such as housing, schools etc) or the welfare capability are not in equilibrium. Infrastructure is pretty inelastic in that it takes a long time to build a school or housing stock (and buy the land and all the things that need to fall into place). At least housing is in the private sector, but supply and demand dictates price goes up. Schools are covered by national debt, and I would lay odds the cost of building infrastructure outweighs funds raised through taxation directly from immigrants, and so the burden falls to the wider population. Add to that equation that Keynesian economics breaks down here. The multiplier doesn't work as earned income flows out of the country to family abroad, it doesn't stay within the realm to speed up its circulation.

Medical welfare is the easier one to pick on though. There HAS to be equilibrium across EU sovereign states otherwise the labor flow will be to where there is the greatest benefit to the individual. ""my wage is low, but my health welfare is covered." However, this strains the system so not only is supply quality damaged, but supply trends to inelastic as it doesn't have the capacity. If the open market system of health we have in the US was applied in the UK the health providers would be buying every available ticket to go and expand their businesses as insurance premiums would go through the roof based on the short supply of health facilities/expertise.

And that's why the EU doesn't work and needs to revert to being a free trade zone.

None of which is anything to do with punching Nazis

[Lancasterclaret]

Its certainly more complicated, which is why simple slogans out of the mouths of politicians are really annoying.

[2 Bee Holed]

Lancaster: Indeed; the level of debate during the referendum was appalling from both sides.

[2 Bee Holed]

My wife works as a supply teacher in nurseries.
On the 5th September 2016 (was it, first school day anyhow), 3 parents turned up at her nursery in Moss Side wanting their 3 toddlers admitted. The school didn't even know who they were, let alone be able to offer them a place. They were told to contact the City Council. This is the reality of uncontrolled immigration.

[Lancasterclaret]

No, it isn't

Thats the reality of people not understanding how the system works, or the system being chronically underfunded for a substantial period of time.

I'm not denying that movement of people puts pressure on services, just like others on this thread are not denying that immigrants tend to produce more income than they take out, but (I'll say it again) if you don't put the money into the services that we all rely on, then we all suffer.

Blaming immigrants for that is like Blackburn fans blaming us for them being so shite.

[Lancasterclaret]

Old arguments anyway, and nothing to do with punching Nazis in the face!

[2 Bee Holed]

I think we did more than just punch Nazis in the face between 1939 and 1945.
Extremists need tackling from whichever end of the political spectrum they are.
Quickly and peacefully put them in their place before it gets out of hand.

I can see some correlation here though between extremists, Trump and indeed Brexit.
The issues need dealing with before the 'winds of change' take hold.
So whilst the guy being punched doesn't appear to be related to Trump or Brexit some
far right people/groups somehow think it is ok to come out of the closet now.
It isn't, your views are still repulsive and make a mockery of what our fathers
and grandfathers fought against 73 years ago.

[Lancasterclaret]

Well said 2 Bee Holed

[Imploding Turtle]

Lancaster: Indeed; the level of debate during the referendum was appalling from both sides.

And by implying that remain voters think Brexit voters are racist for voting to leave you're helping make sure that the level of debate stays in the gutter.

[ClaretMoffitt]

And by implying that remain voters think Brexit voters are racist for voting to leave you're helping make sure that the level of debate stays in the gutter.

Have you ever seen the comments on the Jeremy Corbyn Facebook page what anything brexit related is mentioned? All you see is "xenophobic" "daily mail readers" "uneducated" "bigoted". It's a buzzword bonanza.

[Greenmile]

Have you ever seen the comments on the Jeremy Corbyn Facebook page what anything brexit related is mentioned? All you see is "xenophobic" "daily mail readers" "uneducated" "bigoted". It's a buzzword bonanza.

Have you ever seen the comments below any Daily Mail article about immigration? All you see is xenophobia and uneducated bigoted Daily Mail readers (ok, perhaps not all you see, but a good 90% or so, I'd wager).

I'm sure I've pointed this out to you before (apologies in advance if I'm mixing you up with someone else on here) but if you judge anyone, right or left wing, by the BTL / facebook group comments on the internet, you will become a total misanthrope.

[Rowls]

Only problem with your argument Rowls is that net migration contributes to the economy of the country.
I'm not disagreeing that causing housing/NHS issues, but you know as well as I do that decisions at a political level taken NOT to build enough houses or to provide enough services to help cope with the extra numbers don't help either.

And the only problem with your "problem" with what you refer to as "my argument" is that I didn't actually make any argument; I simply picked holes in the glaring faults of other's arguments.

OK, granted, I have posted my opinions on immigration on here before so perhaps you've remembered them? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

But more presciently, your point is what I see as a variation of the refusal to accept obvious truths about immigration - when faced with the negative consequences of immigration, mention the NHS and claim it helps the economy. The supposed "positive" of immigration which you quote ("contributes to the economy") is an utter red herring.

The net benefit to economy of immigration is very likely nil. Immigrants from the western EU countries and other "Anglo-sphere" countries tend to contribute more in taxes than they receive from the taxpayer. Immigrants from eastern European countries tend to be (and these are obviously crude and sweeping generalisations, regardless of their veracity) neutral in terms of contributing to the exchequer. However, immigrants from Africa, the middle east and under-developed countries in Asia tend to be VERY expensive to the taxpayer, receiving far more in services than they contribute in taxes.

All in all, it means that the net benefit of immigration is pretty much nil. Those on your side of the argument sometimes claim these supposed economic benefits but it's really shaky ground.

Likewise, many on "my side" of the argument paint a bleak picture and quote the figures from African immigrants etc to show how "bad" it is.

Both are wrong.

But what if we could drastically reduce the kind of immigration that costs the taxpayer money? What if we could eliminate all the negative perceptions that go with that? What if we could actually increase the kind of immigration that does benefit the UK?

That would be brilliant.

[Imploding Turtle]

Have you ever seen the comments on the Jeremy Corbyn Facebook page what anything brexit related is mentioned? All you see is "xenophobic" "daily mail readers" "uneducated" "bigoted". It's a buzzword bonanza.

He's not posting on the Jeremy Corbyn Facebook page. He's posting here. By your logic - that if it happens somewhere then it's relevent everywhere - I could have a look at Stormfont's website, or the Mail's comments section, and determine that Brexit voters are simply just racist and then come on here and bring it up how Brexit voters are all bigots. If it's legitimate to undermine discussion here by whining about being called bigots somewhere else then I see no reason for it to be illegitimate for someone to bring up bigotry elsewhere and apply them here too.

I can't remember a single instance of anyone on this website calling someone else racist simply because they voted to leave, yet over and over again on here I read people complaining about it the way 2 Bee Holed did. It's pretty pathetic and it makes discussing this with these kinds of people tiresome, although i'm not entirely convinced that isn't their objective.

[Greenmile]

The net benefit to economy of immigration is very likely nil. Immigrants from the western EU countries and other "Anglo-sphere" countries tend to contribute more in taxes than they receive from the taxpayer. Immigrants from eastern European countries tend to be (and these are obviously crude and sweeping generalisations, regardless of their veracity) neutral in terms of contributing to the exchequer. However, immigrants from Africa, the middle east and under-developed countries in Asia tend to be VERY expensive to the taxpayer, receiving far more in services than they contribute in taxes.

I'd be interested to learn where you got this information from.

[Rowls]

I'd be interested to learn where you got this information from.

Many sources. Mainly personal experience and lots and lots of articles, surveys etc read over many years and stored inside my head.

As such, can't provide a single source for the information but there'll be plenty to back it up.

There will also be -in this Post Truth world- some facts which appear to cast doubt on my assertions (perhaps IT is searching some out right now, if he's not had too many shandies?) but I would stand by the broad truths of what I've said. For example, where I said "Asia" it would have been more accurate to say "Asia, not including Japan, South Korea or China") because immigrants from these countries tend to be on the more productive end of the spectrum.

[Imploding Turtle]

Many sources. Mainly personal experience and lots and lots of articles, surveys etc read over many years and stored inside my head.

As such, can't provide a single source for the information but there'll be plenty to back it up.

There will also be -in this Post Truth world- some facts which appear to cast doubt on my assertions (perhaps IT is searching some out right now, if he's not had too many shandies?) but I would stand by the broad truths of what I've said. For example, where I said "Asia" it would have been more accurate to say "Asia, not including Japan, South Korea or China") because immigrants from these countries tend to be on the more productive end of the spectrum.

So wait a minute. You can't provide anything to support your assertion, and then expect the rest of us to believe anything anyone presents that disproves your assertions is wrong or a lie.

When many of us were kids we'd make stupid comments about each other on paper and say "if destroyed still true" for a bit of childish fun, but you're actually trying to make it an actual tactic in a debate about immigration.

[Greenmile]

Many sources. Mainly personal experience and lots and lots of articles, surveys etc read over many years and stored inside my head.

As such, can't provide a single source for the information but there'll be plenty to back it up.

There will also be -in this Post Truth world- some facts which appear to cast doubt on my assertions (perhaps IT is searching some out right now, if he's not had too many shandies?) but I would stand by the broad truths of what I've said. For example, where I said "Asia" it would have been more accurate to say "Asia, not including Japan, South Korea or China") because immigrants from these countries tend to be on the more productive end of the spectrum.

There's loads of doctors from Asia though, isn't there? Mostly India / Pakistan / Bangladesh? Just an example and mostly based on personal experience and observations tbh, but doesn't that give lie to at least part of what you claim, now you've clarified what you meant by "Asia"?

[DCWat]

So wait a minute. You can't provide anything to support your assertion, and then expect the rest of us to believe anything anyone presents that disproves your assertions is wrong or a lie.

When many of us were kids we'd make stupid comments about each other on paper and say "if destroyed still true" for a bit of childish fun, but you're actually trying to make it an actual tactic in a debate about immigration.

Almost as hollow as blaming being drunk as an excuse

[Imploding Turtle]

Almost as hollow as blaming being drunk as an excuse

I didn't say it was an excuse.

explanation != excuse


Edit: Wait another minute. Are you saying that someone claiming that their assertions are absolutelty correct, and that even if someone disproves them then they're still correct, and that other person is being "post truth" is less hollow than someone explaining that being drunk inhibits their intellect?

[Lancasterclaret]

Many, many sources, More sources than you've got anyway, everyone knows it, they would be the best sources ever, FACT!

[DCWat]

Tomato, tomato.

[Imploding Turtle]

Many, many sources, More sources than you've got anyway, everyone knows it, they would be the best sources ever, FACT!

You'd think if there were so many sources that he could perhaps provide a few.

[Imploding Turtle]

Tomato, tomato.

An explanation is not an excuse. They have completely different meanings.

Are you honestly going to pretned to be so stupid as to not know this? Do i have to post Morpheus' Fonzie picture at you?

[DCWat]

Your 'explanation' for an ill thought out reply was drunkenness. You have placed blame on something other than yourself, an excuse.

I'm not suggesting that it's right not to be able to back up with facts, but you're very quick to criticise others (often alongside an insult) despite in this very thread offering a point that was blatantly not factual.

[Imploding Turtle]

Your 'explanation' for an ill thought out reply was drunkenness. You have placed blame on something other than yourself, an excuse.

Well now you're just making stuff up, i didn't place blame on anything.

I'm not suggesting that it's right not to be able to back up with facts, but you're very quick to criticise others (often alongside an insult) despite in this very thread offering a point that was blatantly not factual.

What point did i make that i refused to support with facts?

[DCWat]

Refer to it as an explanation (sounded more like a poor excuse) if you wish, drunkenness was your explanation for a post that was not factual.

Now you are putting words there that were not said or implied. To use your typical stance, where have I said you refused to support a point with facts?

[Imploding Turtle]

Refer to it as an explanation (sounded more like a poor excuse) if you wish, drunkenness was your explanation for a post that was not factual.

Now you are putting words there that were not said or implied. To use your typical stance, where have I said you refused to support a point with facts?

OK, if you want to be pedantic i'll play your game. What fact did i present?

And by the way, your bias is showing. Getting this upset over my explaining of a poorly thoughtout post with drunkeness, yet giving someone else a pass when they pre-emptively refuse to accept contradiction shows you up as rather hypocritical and quite biased.

[DCWat]

I'm far from getting upset and have no bias either way, other than finding it amusing to see you forever calling others out for innacuracies or lack of evidence whilst doing the same yourself. Touché to the hypocrisy although I'm not after a thirty post tit for tat debate.

[Imploding Turtle]

I'm far from getting upset and have no bias either way, other than finding it amusing to see you forever calling others out for innacuracies or lack of evidence whilst doing the same yourself.

I didn't do the same though. Find me one post where i've stated something as fact and not presented evidence to support it when it was requested.

And i've never criticised someone for not presenting supporting evidence. I've only criticised people for refusing to do it when asked, or simply not being able to present evidence and then continuing to believe their "facts". I've no issue with people making assertions, i only take issue with them making assertions they're unwilling or unable to factually support. Kind of like now, with you. If you can support what you're saying about me then i would expect you to provide evidence. So please, present your case.

[BabylonClaret]

That depends on your sense of humour, some people think that people swinging from bridges is funny. Different sides of the same coin.

What???? That sounds like you're saying people find lynching funny. Seriously?

[Imploding Turtle]

What???? That sounds like you're saying people find lynching funny. Seriously?

Well if you line them up like one of those executive toys it can be pretty damn amusing.


For any idiots who read this and want to get outraged and ruin their Ovaltine, i'm not serious.

[Rowls]

So wait a minute. You can't provide anything to support your assertion, and then expect the rest of us to believe anything anyone presents that disproves your assertions is wrong or a lie.

Haha! A typical misunderstanding of what was said.

And also a stupid, childish response to the balanced views that I posted on immigration being a complex issue with pros and cons depending on the kind of immigration.

And you're not going to challenge the idea that immigration has lowered wages and raised house prices are you?

[Imploding Turtle]

Haha! A typical misunderstanding of what was said.

And also a stupid, childish response to the balanced views that I posted on immigration being a complex issue with pros and cons depending on the kind of immigration.

And you're not going to challenge the idea that immigration has lowered wages and raised house prices are you?

Someone has already challenged you to provide some kind of evidence to support what you've said but you've besically responded by saying that you're right and anything that shows you're wrong is a lie.

All you've done is post your opinions and presented it as if it is fact. If you could support any of it with evidence then you wouldn't need to say that anything anyone posts that proves you wrong has to be a lie.

You're completely full of ****. If something feels like it should be true then that's enough for it to be true to you, and you dogmatically refuse any evidence to the contrary. Oh yeah, and anytime someone calls you out on your bullshit you resort to saying it's because they misunderstand you, it's never because you've talking ****.

[Rowls]

Turtle you don't appear to know the difference between a statistic and a fact (or a "fact", as you like to call it).

Oohhhhhhhhh, hang on I know what's happened here. I can see why you're wetting yourself, perhaps.

When I said this:

As such, can't provide a single source for the information but there'll be plenty to back it up.

You've read it to mean "there is nothing to back up my argument"; whereas the obvious intention within the context of that post is, "there isn't a singular source that agree exactly with what I've said because my knowledge has been accrued over years and years of reading lots of different article and reports etc"

I can see it's a badly phrased sentence but the context IS clear within the post as a whole. It's funny how we always see exactly what we want to see, isn't it?

However, I don't think you've actually managed to contribute anything towards this debate. Certainly not an opinion about how immigration affects us.

So I'll summarise my points and let you try to disagree with them:

1. Mass low-skilled immigration has kept working class wages in this country artificially low
2. Mass immigration to this country has kept house prices artificially high
3. There are pros and cons to immigration
4. Net "benefit" to the economy is nil - the expenses weight out the same as the income
5. We should be able to decide who we want to let into the country - let in those who contribute more and refuse those who would cost us more to house, look after, give welfare to, provide NHS care etc etc.
6. Exceptions to be made to standard immigration policy for a small number of refugees decided upon by our ability to integrate them into our society and size of our country.

[claretdom]

To think he claims not to be a hypocrite

[JohnMcGreal]

1. Mass low-skilled immigration has kept working class wages in this country artificially low
2. Mass immigration to this country has kept house prices artificially hig.

Regarding those two key points, if you really believe that to be the case, have you ever questioned the motives of the government? Do you think that the economical model we are devoted to demands suppression of wages and house prices to continue to rise? It's absolutely intentional, Rowls. It's conservative party policy.

If the Conservative party want low-skilled wages to be suppressed and house prices to rise for eternity, they will still find a way of doing this post-Brexit.

If immigration is not the tool (I'm not convinced it is the tool even now) then it will be achieved by reducing and possibly abolishing the minimum wage, further reduction of the power of unions, a slow down in house building and increase in the difficulty of actually buying a house.

I think a lot of people who blame immigration for a lot of this country's problems will be in for a big shock in Brexit Britain.

[morpheus2]

The organiser of the leftist protests at Berkeley, Yvette Felarca, explains what has to be done to shut the Fascists up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPrRLyFTzSU

[Corky]

The problem with BAMN is that those ideals and actions can equally be copied by what she would consider to be Facist etc. and they have the perfect excuse.

Also at what point does she consider the views of the Right to be OK and worthy of peaceful discussion without recourse to violence.

[Rowls]

Regarding those two key points, if you really believe that to be the case, have you ever questioned the motives of the government? Do you think that the economical model we are devoted to demands suppression of wages and house prices to continue to rise? It's absolutely intentional, Rowls. It's conservative party policy.

If the Conservative party want low-skilled wages to be suppressed and house prices to rise for eternity, they will still find a way of doing this post-Brexit.

If immigration is not the tool (I'm not convinced it is the tool even now) then it will be achieved by reducing and possibly abolishing the minimum wage, further reduction of the power of unions, a slow down in house building and increase in the difficulty of actually buying a house.

I think a lot of people who blame immigration for a lot of this country's problems will be in for a big shock in Brexit Britain.

There's a lot of paranoia in your post JohnMcGreal.

The Conservative Party are the only mainstream party to have consistently spoken about limiting immigration. They are, in fact, the only mainstream political party to pledge to cut immigration.

They have also given tax cuts to the lowest paid workers, increased the National Minimum Wage and brought in the National Living Wage.

I think you're being extremely paranoid and nosensical here

[Rowls]

You've got to love someone who can make the argument that immigration is responcible for both low wages and high house prices. As if those low-paid migrants are the ones buying over-priced houses.

1. Mass low-skilled immigration has kept working class wages in this country artificially low
2. Mass immigration to this country has kept house prices artificially high
3. There are pros and cons to immigration
4. Net "benefit" to the economy is nil - the expenses weight out the same as the income
5. We should be able to decide who we want to let into the country - let in those who contribute more and refuse those who would cost us more to house, look after, give welfare to, provide NHS care etc etc.
6. Exceptions to be made to standard immigration policy for a small number of refugees decided upon by our ability to integrate them into our society and size of our country.

Come on Turtle. Poke your head out and engage in the debate.

[JohnMcGreal]

There's a lot of paranoia in your post JohnMcGreal.

The Conservative Party are the only mainstream party to have consistently spoken about limiting immigration. They are, in fact, the only mainstream political party to pledge to cut immigration.

They have also given tax cuts to the lowest paid workers, increased the National Minimum Wage and brought in the National Living Wage.

I think you're being extremely paranoid and nosensical here

They may have 'spoken' about limiting immigration, and they may have even 'pledged' to cut immigration. But under their government, immigration (from outside of the EU, which they had the ability to control) hit a record high. This was when Teresa May was Home Secretary, nonetheless.

So they're either grossly incompetent when it comes to governing, or they were lying when they were talking of cutting immigration to the 'tens of thousands'.

Which is it?

Also, wages have stagnated under this government and we've seen the biggest fall in living standards since Victorian times.

[Rowls]

Also, wages have stagnated under this government and we've seen the biggest fall in living standards since Victorian times.

So if this is true why aren't they celebrating this? Why are they instead giving the low paid tax cuts AND increasing the minimum wage AND bringing in the living wage?

You're being paranoid. Utterly paranoid.