UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

[fluffybunnyuk]

Why should jobs be for natives?

Well because countries like india, and china are churning out qualified people in their millions. How does this affect the UK? Well if only the most qualified take the job then yes its technically better for business/industry. However this is not the full picture. The fundamental problem that isnt addressed is the vast swathe of uk nationals edged out of a job because "an immigrant" can do it better. This contributes to the uk unemployment problem, and the budget deficit by increasing welfare payments to uk nationals. On the surface it looks great because our economy is growing, however the price of that is leaving alot of people behind to rot.
Now i'm all for immigration on a "skill shortage" basis, and immigrants contribute a heck of alot to the economy, moreso than their given credit for. However skilling our population to take up these jobs should be our biggest priority.
As much as I dislike most of UKIP policies, on issues of complete freedom of movement within the EU they have a point.

[Tangled Metal]

Take midwifery in the UK. IIRC there was a crisis in it resulting likely preventable deaths and other aspects. A drive to train up more has led to more hitting the maternity wards and out in the community where they are needed. However this sudden need for increased levels was due to research into how to achieve the best outcomes in maternity and in some ways could not be adequately planned for. This meant immediate need and a recruiting of overseas midwives. Commonwealth and european personnel were recruited. Skills shortage led to immigration. Shock horror a good reason for immigration! UKIP are not worried because they can ignore it because they are not in power. The benefits of being a political pressure group I guess. Worthless in policy but can highlight things missed by the ruling political parties and their power carve up. Just with all the things needing to be brought up why only stop on Immigration and EU? Could it be that they only have views with a shred of truth about them in these two topics? I don't know because quite frankly I view UKIP as a joke. Same as the BNP, EDL, Rainbow party (Galloway's cover group) and the likes of that socialist labour splinter group (was it real labour or something like that).

[kwackers]

As much as I dislike most of UKIP policies, on issues of complete freedom of movement within the EU they have a point.

I'd disagree. I know *lots* of folk who left the UK to fill in skills shortages in other EU countries. Had they stayed here they'd also likely be contributing to unemployment. IIRC the number of UK nationals working in the EU isn't that much different to the number of 'foreigners' working in the UK so it does make you wonder exactly what the effect of restricting 'foreigners' will have? If it became some sort of tit for tat thing perhaps it'll simply increase unemployment as folk return to a country that has no use for their skill set??

The only real issue (IMO) is that the EU have allowed countries to join that simply weren't ready. On a level playing field there's no issue with allowing citizens to move easily around to where the work is, trouble is it's not that level.

From an historical POV up to around a 100 years ago you could travel and work anywhere you liked without any form of passport.

[honesty]

So? even the meanest of studies shows immigrants provide a net benefit of at least 10%. Why should jobs be for natives? You get those people that are best for the role, irrespective of all other factors. why should we care if "our great nation" cant produce enough doctors when we can get enough skilled ones from other places.

On your first point, certain groups of immigrants are more than carrying their weight and making up for those that do not. We should limit immigration by people who are of no or minimal benefit to the country,

So we want only those humans that are going to be a benefit to us? Stuff their disabled children, they give no benefit. We, having previously invaded and conquered over a third of the globe, are obviously in a perfect position to see into the future and make a value judgement on peoples lives...

this includes the importing of people with ideologies that are in stark contrast to our own (democratic governance, rule of law, what remains of freedom of speech, for instance), to the point that they want to overthrow and supplant them with something much more sinister.

So? Surely we are able to handle different ideologies to our own? They are always going to be a minority view and since we are in a democratic country, that minority view is not going to gain traction. There are people just as many (if not more) people native to the UK that want to degrade or kill other humans just because they are different to themselves. We turn a bit of a blind eye to the hate being spouted by fundamental white Christians against homosexuals for example but we're more than happy to pick up on the same thing from immigrants.

Even limiting immigration to those that will benefit the country as a whole, might not benefit a locality. For instance, there are many manual jobs paying minimum wage and offering long hours, where you won't get a look in unless you are Eastern European and employers often advertise for employees purely from Eastern Europe. British employees for these positions have often been branded lazy....or perhaps they are less easy to manipulate and abuse, having come from a country where a persons employment rights and conditions are perhaps somewhat better than in other countries.

If we are discussing working practices then its working practice law that needs addressing not immigration.

The idea that the person who gets a job is the person that is best for the role is a nonsense. People that fill jobs are usually competent and cheap, those who are better or at least better at making it seem that way, move up or on and demand more money. Employment isn't purely based on merit alone (many people are turned down for jobs because they are overqualified, will likely get bored and leave).

With respect to doctors, half the skill of being a doctor is being able to understand, empathise and communicate with your patient in the best way possible. There have been numerous cases where patients have been completely misdiagnosed and even prescribed medicines that have severely damaged or even killed them,

because Harold Shipman was a foreigner right? I mean British born doctors cant kill people can they? I'm sorry but saying because some immigrants have made mistakes we should stop all immigration is very much the same argument you get from drivers about giving more space for cycling because some cyclists jump red lights. It's as rubbish an argument here as it is there.

through a lack of decent English on the part of the practitioner. When you have a nurse that cannot speak or understand English at a native level, then half the function of the nurse (putting the patients mind at ease, making them feel comfortable, general chit chat) is removed. I'd suggest it is always preferable to have nurses and doctors who speak English as a first language and from culturally similar backgrounds, if not British (American, Kiwis, Aussie etc).

Having grown up in Leicestershire I find it easier to understand a person with an Indian accent than someone with a Glaswegian one. Are you saying we shouldn't employ Glaswegian nurses in the East Midlands because they cant communicate with people? Yes I think we do probably need to start implementing a minimum English requirement in some of these roles, but in others its not important. The office cleaner at work is Polish and speaks hardly a word of English. This does not stop her doing her job competently.

Lastly, why shouldn't we prefer natives to immigrants, it is the policy of almost every other sensible country in the world, openly stated or not. Millions flock here because they believe the UK is a land of milk and honey, but how long can it possibly continue that way (supposing it is true), if everyone and their uncle is welcomed through the doors (or risks their life in the back or on the underside of a lorry) regardless of the benefit to the country in having them. It is not racist to be selective about the types of people you let into your country on a semi-permanent or permanent basis, it is just good sense.

So what if other countries do it. Other countries kill murderers. does not make it better, or even right. Millions do not flock, that's just hyperbole and incorrect. Net immigration was 260,000 last year. That's 0.3% of the population. What we need is better implementation of integration into the system. These immigrants should not be seen as a burden by the government, but as a revenue stream. As I've already said the net benefit of immigrants last year was 10%. We make money off immigrants....

[beardy]

We make money off immigrants....

That money isnt shared out though. So the rich and corporations get richer and the low-skill workers have their pay kept lower. Meanwhile IDS is trying his best to make life unbearable for those who can not get a job. The only weapon left to such people is a vote. Unfortunately they dont believe it will actually change things so they dont bother, yet if UKIP can portray themselves as actually being different then they just may go and vote.

Which is a good enough reason for those with the power to throw as much muck as possible at any new party which looks like getting anywhere.

[Psamathe]

As much as I dislike most of UKIP policies, on issues of complete freedom of movement within the EU they have a point.

I'd disagree. I know *lots* of folk who left the UK to fill in skills shortages in other EU countries. Had they stayed here they'd also likely be contributing to unemployment. IIRC the number of UK nationals working in the EU isn't that much different to the number of 'foreigners' working in the UK so it does make you wonder exactly what the effect of restricting 'foreigners' will have? If it became some sort of tit for tat thing perhaps it'll simply increase unemployment as folk return to a country that has no use for their skill set??

The only real issue (IMO) is that the EU have allowed countries to join that simply weren't ready. On a level playing field there's no issue with allowing citizens to move easily around to where the work is, trouble is it's not that level.
...

I agree. Not only do UK citizens move overseas to take up employment but there are a fair number that emigrate and set-up their own business, often very targeted in a sector the existing local economy has not addressed.

I think UKIP are stirring-up the immigration issue as it is just a means to get people to support them (as the party that will "solve" the problem by leaving the EU). To this end they ignore many reports and statistics that show they are wrong and focus on prejudice more than real balanced data. They also ignore the massive negative impacts (for the UK) of leaving the EU. And their concern is more about leaving the EU and immigration is more a means to garner votes.

And, re: leaving the EU, it seems more about the ego of our Westminster MPs than actually the need for new laws. Does it really matter where our laws and regulations are made as long as they are appropriate and as long as it is based on a democratic system. The EU might not be perfect and occasionally they do some daft things, but they "get it right" a lot more often that Westminster does, they make far fewer "daft mistakes" than Westminster, etc. They might not have a perfect democratic system but then 1st past the post every 5 years is hardly ideal either.

Ian

Ian

[honesty]

We make money off immigrants....

That money isnt shared out though. So the rich and corporations get richer and the low-skill workers have their pay kept lower. Meanwhile IDS is trying his best to make life unbearable for those who can not get a job. The only weapon left to such people is a vote. Unfortunately they dont believe it will actually change things so they dont bother, yet if UKIP can portray themselves as actually being different then they just may go and vote.

Which is a good enough reason for those with the power to throw as much muck as possible at any new party which looks like getting anywhere.

Which again has nothing to do with immigration, but to do with free market economies and taxes.

[beardy]

We make money off immigrants....

That money isnt shared out though. So the rich and corporations get richer and the low-skill workers have their pay kept lower. Meanwhile IDS is trying his best to make life unbearable for those who can not get a job. The only weapon left to such people is a vote. Unfortunately they dont believe it will actually change things so they dont bother, yet if UKIP can portray themselves as actually being different then they just may go and vote.

Which is a good enough reason for those with the power to throw as much muck as possible at any new party which looks like getting anywhere.

Which again has nothing to do with immigration, but to do with free market economies and taxes.

Which is a reasonable argument to make and add to your

If we are discussing working practices then its working practice law that needs addressing not immigration.

The establishment were not offering any cures for these problems (because to them it isnt a problem) and promises before election can be relied upon to be broken. With UKIP it is much more believable that they will do something about it.
I am sure those who believe that immigration isnt the problem have done a thorough job of convincing themselves that is the case but the Polls (not Poles) clearly show a large proportion of the population dont agree. Which is what my posts on this thread are about, they are not trying to fight UKIPs policies any more, they are just trying to destroy their credibility with very biased coverage.
Notice that one thing UKIP have done for sure is shift the stated policies of the main parties into their territory and they are now doing all they can to "look with it", instead of just silencing people by calling them racists.

[honesty]

I think they have very cleverly created a boogie man in immigration and are laying a large number of faults in diverse areas of government and law firmly at the feet of this scape goat. The current government is quite happy for them to do this as it suits their interest, but they don't want to lose voters to UKIP, hence the denigration of the people rather than the policy. Labour have jumped on board because they can see people being swayed by it. What is humourous to me though is that the EU have created laws that try to answer some of these problems (working week length for example) but because they are shooting at all thinks foreign it's not good to admit this as "everything has to be black and white or the prols wont understand it". This is what annoys me most with UKIP to be honest is the simple answers to very complex questions, but simple is easy and people understand it.

[beardy]

The answers are often complex when you are trying to fit them into the existing system. On the other hand if you are ripping it up, that is quite simple and you can not really work out the details until the dust has settled.
Similar for the Scottish Independence vote. How could they possibly work out the details on things until they had seen the outcome of other countries' reaction to the move?

Also UKIP is a new party, they will have to learn while in office. If that is unacceptable then again democracy doesnt really exist because you can only ever re-elect existing parties.

It isnt as if UKIP have gone knocking on a closed door trying to create dissatisfaction through the medium of an immigration bogeyman. The door was wide open with people calling for something that can make a difference. There will be (and has been) a lot of people voting for UKIP not because they really like it or its policies but for once voting could actually make a difference to policies that doesnt need a microscope to spot.
Unfortunately the UK always seems to swing to the right on these occasions.

[Psamathe]

Also UKIP is a new party, they will have to learn while in office. If that is unacceptable then again democracy doesnt really exist because you can only ever re-elect existing parties.

A bit off-topic but you have highlighted what I think is one of the main failings of democracy in the UK. I cannot vote for Conservative Party or the Labour Party or the UKIP Party. And I don't want to. I can only vote for candidates who have put themselves forward to act as the Member of Parliament for the constituency where I live. some of these individuals are members of parties, others not. But the person elected should be acting as a delegate or representative for my constituency not as a stooge for some party leader I have never voted for (and cannot vote for).

The party system has taken over. Election campaigns are more about flying visits by party leaders (or senior party people) who fly-in (or campaign bus in) for a very brief stage managed visit, maybe give a few sound-bites to a carefully selected audience of strong party supporters, etc.

To my mind it should be about voting for the individual who is going to attend Parliament to represent you.

I dislike Conservative policies, yet on one occasion I have actually voted for a Conservative candidate (actually in a local council election) because I happened to meet him when I was involved in campaigning against a development (the sort of development Conservatives would be all for). And after talking to him, he accepted the points, then supported the campaign and even went to the Planning Committee and used his "local councillor" slot to talk against the development. He was somebody who would listen to his constituents and represent them above party dogma and ideology (and hence he got my vote as an appropriate local councillor).

Ian

[reohn2]

Also UKIP is a new party, they will have to learn while in office. If that is unacceptable then again democracy doesnt really exist because you can only ever re-elect existing parties.

A bit off-topic but you have highlighted what I think is one of the main failings of democracy in the UK. I cannot vote for Conservative Party or the Labour Party or the UKIP Party. And I don't want to. I can only vote for candidates who have put themselves forward to act as the Member of Parliament for the constituency where I live. some of these individuals are members of parties, others not. But the person elected should be acting as a delegate or representative for my constituency not as a stooge for some party leader I have never voted for (and cannot vote for).

The party system has taken over. Election campaigns are more about flying visits by party leaders (or senior party people) who fly-in (or campaign bus in) for a very brief stage managed visit, maybe give a few sound-bites to a carefully selected audience of strong party supporters, etc.

To my mind it should be about voting for the individual who is going to attend Parliament to represent you.

I dislike Conservative policies, yet on one occasion I have actually voted for a Conservative candidate (actually in a local council election) because I happened to meet him when I was involved in campaigning against a development (the sort of development Conservatives would be all for). And after talking to him, he accepted the points, then supported the campaign and even went to the Planning Committee and used his "local councillor" slot to talk against the development. He was somebody who would listen to his constituents and represent them above party dogma and ideology (and hence he got my vote as an appropriate local councillor).

Ian

This to my mind is why there is so much political apathy in the UK,the wo/man on the street see's his/her vote as impotent and so doesn't bother voting at all.
This plays into the hands of the political parties,and leaves them with less work to do,all they have to do is convince a minute percentage of the country's voting public to vote for them and they're in office.
UKIP(can I take this opportunity to distance myself from them) are upsetting the apple cart big style and so invite ridicule in anyway the major parties can find so as to maintain their stranglehold on 'democracy',whilst having no interest in true democracy at all but only to maintain the status quo.
Because of this lack of true democracy,I find myself constantly picking the best of evils to represent me rather than someone who really has mine and the country's interests at heart.

[Psamathe]

Slight side track (but I'm not going to start another political thread), just illustrating the abilities of those who end-up governing the country, an interesting article about the opinions of a Conservative MP who thinks that Astrology should be use to relieve the pressure on NHS doctors. An example quote "Astrology is a useful diagnostic tool enabling us to see strengths and weaknesses via the birth chart.". Though he does seem to recognise that the NHS spending money on Astrology "would cause “a huge row”".

Not a long article and ... well it makes you wonder when we have people like this governing the country.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/25/astrology-help-nhs-claim-conservative-mp-david-tredinnick. And I really did have to check it was not 1 April and I'm still not 100% confident it isn't a joke article.

Oh, and the guy says that if you don't agree with him on this you are (amongst other things) "racially prejudiced".

Ian

[Tangled Metal]

Just goes to show there are cranks in all parties. You don't think there are cranks in Labour, the liberals, SNP, PC, SDLP, SF, DUP, UUP, etc. I can think of some who are mainstream, heavy hitters who IMHO come across as ideological cranks at times.

BTW Astrology is sometimes a good tease for people into Astronomy, I have a mate who is a member of the local astronomy club who I keep pestering for a chart (astrology). It winds him up so much he doesn't pick up on the obvious wind up. Having said that I have met people who do truly believe in that guff despite being intelligent, critical people. BTW I believe I was born in the year of the rat under the earth sign and with fire as the opposite!!

[kwackers]

believe in that guff despite being intelligent, critical people

Intelligent and critical don't infer the benefits you think. Confirmation bias is more prevalent amongst such folk, once they decide something is true they're much better at generating the proof they need to continue thinking the way they do. (Or perhaps they can just create better Google search terms... )