News0 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Jackdaw33. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
no point Ukip going for Tory voters, the Tories have already stolen their whole platform. It makes more sense to seek Labour voters who have had enough of Corbyn. The trouble is, Nuttall's a far less trustworthy party leader than Corbyn is. They might have made it if Farage had still been in charge.
It's also a mistake to think that UKIP are going to cash in on labour disillusion or euroscepticism in northern seats to the extent that they would actually win seats
57% of Labour voters there still voted remain.
As net migration from the EU is currently falling as man people in the wealthier states look less favourably on the uk as a destination, and as the job market starts to twitch as a result, we may see a different tale emerge in a lot of places.
Doesn't look in any case as though UKIP took ANY votes from Labour at all in Stoke.
57% of Labour voters there still voted remain.
As net migration from the EU is currently falling as man people in the wealthier states look less favourably on the uk as a destination, and as the job market starts to twitch as a result, we may see a different tale emerge in a lot of places.
Doesn't look in any case as though UKIP took ANY votes from Labour at all in Stoke.
“People vote UKIP due to Xenophobia , racism and hatred of immigrants no use trying to pretend it is anything other!”
Er.. sorry Eddie. I have voted UKIP once or twice when the tactics demanded. I have no hatred of foreigners or immigrants nor am I racist. What I would like to see (which is often erroneously translated into one or more of your definitions) is for the UK alone to determine who does and does not settle here. Impossible whilst we are in the EU and UKIP was the only party with a policy to extract the UK from its clutches. Without UKIP there would have been no referendum and no Brexit. All racists may vote UKIP but not all those voting UKIP are racists and it does not do to slur such voters in this way.
“Instead they [Labour] won one, but the Tories lost the other.”
What strange logic, Mikey. Of the two elections Labour came top in one and the Tories came top in the other. Your statement makes no mention of the Tory success. In fact Labour retained a seat they have held for ages (which presumably is the one you describe as “Labour won one”) and the Tories won the other (which presumably is the one you say they lost).
Er.. sorry Eddie. I have voted UKIP once or twice when the tactics demanded. I have no hatred of foreigners or immigrants nor am I racist. What I would like to see (which is often erroneously translated into one or more of your definitions) is for the UK alone to determine who does and does not settle here. Impossible whilst we are in the EU and UKIP was the only party with a policy to extract the UK from its clutches. Without UKIP there would have been no referendum and no Brexit. All racists may vote UKIP but not all those voting UKIP are racists and it does not do to slur such voters in this way.
“Instead they [Labour] won one, but the Tories lost the other.”
What strange logic, Mikey. Of the two elections Labour came top in one and the Tories came top in the other. Your statement makes no mention of the Tory success. In fact Labour retained a seat they have held for ages (which presumably is the one you describe as “Labour won one”) and the Tories won the other (which presumably is the one you say they lost).
“This is what I don't get: the UK already DOES decide who settles here! Admittedly only indirectly, but if we are talking legal migration here, then it's basically as follows: healthy economy - lots of migrants. Unhealthy economy - fewer migrants.
I know which I prefer.”
Even accepting your (very iffy) contention that the UK controls its immigration by the controlling the state of its economy, ikky, your logic does not quite stack up. The health of the economy and the need to accept uncontrolled immigration are not conjoined. Furthermore, if the state of the UK’s economy declined it may, but not necessarily would, result in a reduction in immigration, especially if our economic decline coincided with decline in the countries of origin of the immigrants. Even more than that, the effect of immigration does not extend solely to the economy (and it is not all beneficial even to just that). It also extends to the wellbeing of the country and it is quite clear than unlimited immigration is placing enormous strains on essential services such as healthcare, education and housing. Not all immigration is bad and neither is it all good. What is needed is control to sort out the wheat from the chaff and that is what has been lacking
I know which I prefer.”
Even accepting your (very iffy) contention that the UK controls its immigration by the controlling the state of its economy, ikky, your logic does not quite stack up. The health of the economy and the need to accept uncontrolled immigration are not conjoined. Furthermore, if the state of the UK’s economy declined it may, but not necessarily would, result in a reduction in immigration, especially if our economic decline coincided with decline in the countries of origin of the immigrants. Even more than that, the effect of immigration does not extend solely to the economy (and it is not all beneficial even to just that). It also extends to the wellbeing of the country and it is quite clear than unlimited immigration is placing enormous strains on essential services such as healthcare, education and housing. Not all immigration is bad and neither is it all good. What is needed is control to sort out the wheat from the chaff and that is what has been lacking
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.