• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Which party are you?

Crawley said:
Craig, I urge you to watch a youtube account of the recent "common sense tour" Nigel farage made around the country.
You will see there are far more differences between UKIP and the torys than is being talked about here.
There is actually a great deal of contempt for the Conservative party from UKIP.
Click to expand...

What's their position on compassion for those affected most by their policies?

My major problem with the Tories and Thatcher in particular was not that difficult choices have/had to be made but their attitude seems to be difficult choices have to be made and fudge you.

Thatcher in particular and the Tories in general remind me of Tony Martin, whether we're talking about burglars, The Belgrano or mining/steel communities, administer the difficult decision that had to be made and then follow up with the punishment beating.
 
Richie said:
I completely agree and ironically the only reason I am swayed by such an argument is because our highest court is the European Court and we have no say in it, but thats me bringing the debate around to Europe and not Nigel Farage.



Being in my mid 20s, I actually have no idea what a Grammar school is. If someone could give me a quick overview I would most appreciate it.

However, if you are talking about two-tiered schooling I am in favour. The simple fact is that we have that right now, it's just everything is called a GCSE. Almost all GCSEs are split in to foundation tier and higher tier papers, in which foundation tier you can only achieve a C at best. Speaking to my friends who are teachers, it is very rare that a pupil will be moved up from foundation to higher classes during the year. I see no reason not to formalise it more.

When it comes to Grammar schools though, doesn't that involve streaming students as young as 11? I feel that would be too young.

On the topic of schools, someone bought up something that intrigued me the other day. What is the justification for separating students by age? Why can't we blur the lines of year groups and allow more talented students from lower years to take certain classes with older pupils to push them harder. I have no idea if it would work in practice, but it's got me thinking.
Click to expand...



No. There is no streaming at age 11.

However, it would probably mean the re-introduction of the old 11+ exam (or similar) whereby a child achieving high marks in this would automatically be offered the chance to attend a Grammar school as opposed to the regular state school.

Example: My eldest lad (now 15) was of an exceptionally high grade diuring his last years of junior school. Infact he was achieving marks/grades rarely seen at that age, and had higher grades been available to be given, at least two subject teachers would have awarded them.

Now, we can not afford to send my boys to fee paying education, so we had to plump for the local secondary choices.
We attempted entry into the school in Crawley with the best overall exam grades for a number of years, but were refused as we fell outside the catchment area by 250 meters. (There are other issues at work here which are not for discussion in this thread).

Had the old 11+ exam been still in existence, he would no doubt have achieved a very high pass mark in this, and if we had grammar schools (which when around were considered the epitome of good learning with multiple opportunities to progress after, far more than even now) he would un-doubtedly have been granted a place.

Instead, he is at our catchment school just round the corner, and although still producing good results, I seriously doubt it is of the level we would have seen from Grammar education.

call it selective if you wish, but it would offer far more opportunities to those with the ability and desire to do well than maybe they are currently getting.

This is a strong UKIP policy, to return Grammar schools to every town in Britain.


As for your suggestion regarding not sticking to age seperation.......it already happens in specific subject classes. My boys have both studied in classes 1 year up as well as taken some exams early, but they are kept to their year group for all other activities.
 
Crawley said:
UKIP are anti-gay marriage solely to protect those in religions who do not wish to consecrate such an act. As would be the case if gay marriage was passed into law.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the case, no religious organisation would be forced to perform same-sex marriages.
 
Gordinho said:
What's their position on compassion for those affected most by their policies?

My major problem with the Tories and Thatcher in particular was not that difficult choices have/had to be made but their attitude seems to be difficult choices have to be made and fudge you.

Thatcher in particular and the Tories in general remind me of Tony Martin, whether we're talking about burglars, The Belgrano or mining/steel communities, administer the difficult decision that had to be made and then follow up with the punishment beating.
Click to expand...


One of UKIPs biggest issues is about ensuring the indigenous population are looked after first, and not pandering to overseas nations finacially until such time we are confidant our own are in good shape.

Example: This country STILL gives billions of pounds in aid to India every year. Meanwhile, India are spending money on nuclear arms, and even their own space programme.

Why?

It's simplistic I know, but I think you'll find UKIP would examine ALL foreign aid (note i said examine, not stop) and take big measures to ensure our own people were looked after and then see what was left.

That, to me seems way more compassionate than anything else we have seen in many a year, but may not fully answer your question.
 
On 11 December 2012, the Minister for Women and Equalities, Secretary of State Maria Miller announced that the Government will bring forward same-sex marriage legislation for England and Wales in early 2013.[109][110] In response to the consultation results, the proposals were extended to allow religious organisations to opt into performing same-sex marriages if they wish,[109] and a 'quadruple-lock' of additional measures to put the protection of religious freedoms "utterly beyond doubt".[109] These are:
- ensuring the legislation states explicitly that no religious organisation, or individual minister, can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises;
- providing an ‘opt-in’ system for religious organisations who wish to conduct marriages for same-sex couples, which also allows individual ministers to continue to refuse to perform same-sex marriage even when their religious organisation opts in;
- amending the Equality Act 2010 to reflect that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple or allowing their premises to be used for this purpose; and
- ensuring that the legislation will not affect the Canon law of the Church of England or the Church in Wales, i.e., unless Canon law and the same-sex marriage legislation are changed in future, both churches will be legally barred from performing same-sex marriages.[109]

The Government also addressed consultation responses about the possibility that the European Court of Human Rights could force all churches to marry same-sex couples, stating:
Both the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights put the protection of religious belief in this matter beyond doubt. We will draft the legislation to ensure that there is a negligible chance of a successful legal challenge in any domestic court, or the ECtHR that would force any religious organisation to conduct marriages for same-sex couples against their will. Any possible claims would be brought against the Government, rather than an organisation to ensure religious organisations would not have to use their resources to fight any legal challenges.
—Equal marriage: The Government’s response, December 2012[109]
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s...m#Same-sex_marriage_bill_in_England_and_Wales
 
I don't mean to rehash all the gay marriage debates, but my 2 cents is that I believe British courts and British law would always uphold the rights of religious organisations to refuse gay marriages and if they didn't, the government would adjust the law.

Europe is a different matter. One of biggest problems with courts like the European Court of Human Rights is that they are unelected but effectively make policy in their interpretation of the law. The same thing happened in the 60s in the USA with the Supreme Court, abortion was made legal without any democratic accountability and no elected representatives having a say in the matter. One example of this recently is ECHR making it unlawful to ban all prisoners from voting.

Do I think such a thing is likely in the short term? No. In the long term? Maybe. Can anyone rule it out? I don't think so.
 
How many people care about gay marriage and where is it on the priority list.?

If you ask me it has had more than it's fair share of airtime and there are an ocean full of bigger fish to fry.
 
johnola said:
How many people care about gay marriage and where is it on the priority list.?

If you ask me it has had more than it's fair share of airtime and there are an ocean full of bigger fish to fry.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Couldn't care less each to their own. I want addressed: immigration, housing and benefit problems and education mainly.
 
Question time discussed immigration last night and to be fair there were some valid points.

Yes immigration offers a benefit to this country as does anyone who comes from a poorer background willing to better their life compared to some who have grown up in a wealthy society and always have the state to fall back on if things turn bad.

Then again poorer societies also have a high level of crime and people seeing a country like England as a place to conduct their business to make a quick buck.

Immigration also can and has affected unskilled jobs. I have a family member who is a landscape gardner who has had his work decline as immigrants compete with little expense on their back (no mortgage and share a house with 6+ others) so are able to offer lower prices which are usually favoured by the customer.

I think immigration should continue but limited and monitored. Maybe offer some form of immgration tax to the country they choose to work in in order to keep the playing fields level for those who reside here and have an expense. Saying that, much of the work they undertake is no doubt cash in hand so a sensible/realistic policy is required.

One figure that comes to mind yesterday was the crimes commited from very poor countries like Romana. Somthing along the lines of 300,000 immigrants reside from Romania and 80,000 recorded crimes commited last year alone. Romania as an example is a terribly poor place, much of the country from gypsy backgrounds who would take advantage of a weak policing state to gain a fast buck. In my opinion if a crime is commited then the person should be sent back to their country and barred from here.

There are many innocent/hardworking people out there wishing for a chance to better their lifes and the immigration places shouldn't be taken up by people looking to take advantage.
 
Last edited:
I have no sympathy for those whose jobs are taken by migrant workers. If an immigrant is willing to come here and do the same job for less, that's good for Britain. The consumer has more money in their pocket to spend on other things.

I actually think the UK would be a much better place if British born people had the work ethic of these migrants.
 
Richie said:
I have no sympathy for those whose jobs are taken by migrant workers. If an immigrant is willing to come here and do the same job for less, that's good for Britain. The consumer has more money in their pocket to spend on other things.

I actually think the UK would be a much better place if British born people had the work ethic of these migrants.
Click to expand...

Good for Britain is it? They all pay full tax do they?
 
Richie said:
I have no sympathy for those whose jobs are taken by migrant workers. If an immigrant is willing to come here and do the same job for less, that's good for Britain. The consumer has more money in their pocket to spend on other things.

I actually think the UK would be a much better place if British born people had the work ethic of these migrants.
Click to expand...

Or if they just fudged off to another country.
 
Roy1983 said:
Good for Britain is it? They all pay full tax do they?
Click to expand...

I suspect they pay a very similar amount of tax in similar jobs. Migrant workers in my company have to pay PAYE as we do everything by the book. Migrant workers in cash businesses probably pay a lot less, much like British workers in the same jobs.
 
Richie said:
I have no sympathy for those whose jobs are taken by migrant workers. If an immigrant is willing to come here and do the same job for less, that's good for Britain. The consumer has more money in their pocket to spend on other things.

I actually think the UK would be a much better place if British born people had the work ethic of these migrants.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's as simple as employ x because he's cheaper than y. When some, not all, immigrants come to this country they'll join a community of ex-pats from their own country and live very frugally in houses of multiple occupancy, often warm bedding it. When they later put down roots and want a family and a place of their own their personal overheads will rise until they're in the situation where they need the same money as an indigenous worker*, from this point of view you need a constant turnover of itinerant workers with low wage demands to be able to pay the lowest wages possible.

I'm not sure how you reconcile that with stemming immigration.

Digressing a bit here but with Spanish unemployment running at 27% does anybody see the next wave of immigration coming from Spain rather than Romania and Bulgaria?


*Reading that back after hitting the post button I think (apart from the warm bedding bit) I've described my parents coming to Britain back in the early to mid fifties.
 
Last edited:
Gordinho said:
I don't think it's as simple as employ x because he's cheaper than y. When some, not all, immigrants come to this country they'll join a community of ex-pats from their own country and live very frugally in houses of multiple occupancy, often warm bedding it. When they later put down roots and want a family and a place of their own their personal overheads will rise until they're in the situation where they need the same money as an indigenous worker*, from this point of view you need a constant turnover of itinerant workers with low wage demands to be able to pay the lowest wages possible.

I'm not sure how you reconcile that with stemming immigration.

Digressing a bit here but with Spanish unemployment running at 27% does anybody see the next wave of immigration coming from Spain rather than Romania and Bulgaria?


*Reading that back after hitting the post button I think (apart from the warm bedding bit) I've described my parents coming to Britain back in the early to mid fifties.
Click to expand...

There seems to be an increasing amount of Spaniards in London at the moment.
 
Richie said:
I have no sympathy for those whose jobs are taken by migrant workers. If an immigrant is willing to come here and do the same job for less, that's good for Britain. The consumer has more money in their pocket to spend on other things.

I actually think the UK would be a much better place if British born people had the work ethic of these migrants.
Click to expand...



yeah gonad*s to the family man priced out of a job because an eastern european worker in his early 20's who lives 6 to a house has far less overheads and can work and survive on a lot less money.


this work ethic of the migrant worker is somewhat of a myth - being someone who works in an industry where more than half the workers i come in to contact with are foreign migrants i can safely say the only reason it is so is because of the £££'s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back