BS: voting? (UK)

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 11:58 AM

Thanks to our wonderful Conservative government, unused Personal Allowance up to £1,060 can be passed to spouse to enable tax to be avoided on that amount!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 10:41 AM

Hi Musky

<"he trick Mike is to tell your wife you are cancelling each other but sneak out to the polling booth.

Politics is a dirty business..... ">

Tee Hee....LOL

Think I'll go in disguise and vote as her !!!

cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 10:32 AM

I'm just puzzled as to what a phoney "rights" fairyland is! I suppose that anywhere that promotes false liberties is not a good place but I would not describe it as a fairyland. It would be far more dangerous than that. Can you elucidate on what phoney rights are and why they would prevent social and economic progress, ake?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 09:26 AM

Vote SNP for a really fair society. Yes, people living in the counties of The UK that make up Scotland can certainly do that.

For starters they say "prosperity through equality" and point out their successful equality legislation, especially in LBGT issues. Something Sturgeon is most proud of.

I don't actually see where Akenaton's homophobic bigotry fits in with that liberal Socialist party though, all the same. It is the same party that invites me to receptions and weekend retreats hoping I will invest in more properties.

One size fits all?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 05:02 AM

"There is an issue to be sure. But neither the issue,the blame nor the solution are being discussed."

Oh there is an issue all right, and unregulated immigration is but one symptom of the "issue".

The "issue" is that successive governments have failed the people of this group of nations, by refusing to use future planning and go for an economic system which has produced great wealth for a few and poverty for a huge number.
The cycle is in decline and our governments are unable to affect that decline, other than to punish our very poorest sectors by cutting public services and the derisory benefits which were designed to salve the "issue" in the first place.

We need the "big stick", "community" over "personal rights", forward planning, a war on waste, a levelling of the economy to show that we are moving towards a really fair society, not a phoney "rights" fairyland. Business interests will continue to tell you this mess can be fixed, that we can go back to full employment...real jobs ....a real life, but they lie, their interests are in generating profit for themselves and their shareholders, hence the support for unregulated immigration over training for our own young people and generations of unemployed.

I don't think that could now be achieved in the UK, the problems are too deep seated, but Scotland still has a chance if we follow the correct model......Vote SNP

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 03:49 AM

It's interesting but check out G8, check out recent trade agreements and check out why we attract investment by multinationals. Or jobs as we call them.

The UKIP case hurls the baby out with great force before even considering the bath water.....

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 05:15 PM

Well, yes, if you *define* common as access to the same raw materials, labour and so on, then your conclusion follows. And I agree these are currently sacred cows. But to push the metaphor beyond reason, you could have got the cows from a different herd and as long as everyone agreed it would still be a common trading zone. For example, it doesn't seem beyond reason to me that in a decade or two we might mutually agree trade barriers as part of a strategy to reduce the environmental impact of transporting goods all over the place. Business would not be happy in the short term but would adapt to a more decentralised approach and carry on successfully.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:32 PM

Notwithstanding the regulations in place are draconian and divisive,which is odd as immigration over the last ten years has been a positive contribution to GDP.

There is an issue to be sure. But neither the issue,the blame nor the solution are being discussed. Akenaton shows why politicians say what they say. It is the feeble weak minded simple folk with votes they are after.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:24 PM

Now all parties agree that regulation is urgently required

Because they are politicians for fucks sake. They tell people what they want to hear. Some idiots actually believe them.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:17 PM

No "if" in that third sentence.

Chuffing iPad...

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 12:31 PM

It's weighted when the market isn't common. Common means access to the same raw material, Labour, tariff etc. To be fair, if it isn't really common now. Taxes, interest rates, other overheads are certainly not common, but to make it as common as we can, two very important factors are;

Access to raw material means we all pay the same tariff for, for instance, US steel or Chinese widgets. Labour means workers can move around the zone seeking better employment.

They are the sacred cows and as Norway and others have found, to trade with The EU, you either get into tariff or follow their rules. Turkey uses the former, Western non EU countries follow the latter.

Just to address the hilarious post above you.. If I want to read that illogical paranoid crap, I can always read the UKIP leaflets or your favourite tabloids. We do not have unfettered immigration. In fact, quite the opposite. You really need help Akenaton. You see the manifesto of the party you tell us you are a member of as a liberal plot, think that equality means unfettered immigration and that normal people think down at your irrational level.

I didn't think Sturgeon was so desperate for votes....

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 11:43 AM

I don't get that, Musket. It is common if everyone agrees and weighted if some agree and some don't, surely? You can't allow text book definitions to take precedence over practice Andy premise was the European could collectively decide against free movement of labour And by definition that would be a common trade agreement


The reason it matters is that whenever one thinks "it must be so " it limits your thinking and therefore your options

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 10:00 AM

"The reality is as ever somewhere in the middle. Nobody says unfettered immigration is a good thing and here in The UK we don't have it"

OH yes they do, "Team Musket and their acolytes have been saying it for years on this forum......remember all the hoo hah about "universal equality?"
Anyone who said anything about regulating immigration was immediately demonised and labelled a racist.
All the major parties said it until dragged kicking and screaming by Mr Farage to face the issue.
Now all parties agree that regulation is urgently required, but none have any idea how that is to be achieved under EU rules.
"Free movement" was thought up by capitalists to drive down wages and make us more competitive......but as usual, the long term effects were dismissed and now we are suffering.

Just wait till the Grand Coalition get going....to quote Dave, "you ain't seen nuthin' yet!"

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 06:15 AM

Yes, DMcG, it could be an arbitrary condition and you could call something a common trading zone without freedom of movement of employment, but it would then be a weighted trading zone by definition. This is why Norway has to abide by the rules without being able to influence and negotiate them.

Having managed companies both within The EU and beyond, the difference is quite large to my understanding and experience.

Excellent article on it in yesterday's Guardian, not the usual fount of business knowledge but one article writer got it bang on.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:41 AM

The point though is that politics is about winning votes. Bending to London media pressure by appearing to turn his back on the SNP's offer of some kind of support may win votes in England - but it will likely lose him even more in Scotland. His kicking of Sturgeon at the first opportunity he can get - over a story in the Tory press which appears to be false won't help either. The rise in SNP membership is still rocketing. 2000 new members in the 24 hours after the debate and since the French Ambassador story there seems to be more and more Labour members leaving the party and joining the SNP.

Plus there is some suggestion that some Labour voters in England itself have been impressed with her. I've had several people say to me they wished they could vote for her party. The survation poll of polls re the debate had her on 20% as the winner when those able to vote for her amount to 9% of the population and those willing and able to vote for her is less than 5%. I think Milliband may find himself asked, specially if he loses, why weren't you more like Sturgeon?

Milliband needn't have commented on whether he would work with the Nats or not. Cameron is refusing to comment re UKIP. He chose to bend to anti-Scottish hectoring by top Tories and their media buddies. Yes it is politics but I think either way it is a mistake. If he can't form a gvt then his loss of support in Scotland will be seen as a factor. If he wins enough votes and manages to come to some sort of deal with the Nats (which they are openly saying they want) then he will be lambasted as a hypocrite by the Tory media.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:11 AM

"A common trading zone requires freedom of movement in the job market"

Not really. It is a choice the EU made and could, if they wished, rescind if everyone agreed. It was an assumption in the work of Friedman and co but one could legitimately build common trading zones on other assumptions.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 01:59 AM

Meanwhile, any leader will form a government with any smaller party and can do so even after saying they never would.

The numbers of seats are the will of the people and either Cameron or Miliband will say it is the will of the people even if they personally would rather not.

Lesson 101 Politics.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 01:52 AM

Re which party will work with which. Was interesting again that Ed Milliband was quick to kick Nicola Sturgeon yesterday when he thought she was wounded. Sturgeon's reaction was to reaffirm that if SNP and Labour had more seats combined than the others then she would vote against any Conservative Queen's Speech. Milliband has yet to say whether he'd prefer a Labour gvt over a Tory one even if it depended on SNP backing on votes of confidence etc!

At least Cameron has flat refused to discuss what he'd do in the event of a hung parliament. Milliband, bending to Tory and media pressure, has already said he wouldn't go into formal coalition with the Nats. Something they hadn't asked for anyway!! So what would he do???? That is half an answer Ed

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:59 PM

Some of you don't seem to understand the meaning of "Free movement of labour".

Labour is never going to freely move in the direction of LOWER wages and poorer services.

Well that is, until our wages and services are lower and poorer than theirs :0)......which may not be long in coming.

In saying that, it's still primarily about numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:35 PM

Hmmm, things are shaping up nicely for the Grand Coalition of Labour Conservative and three Lib Dems.
This is the only way the Westminster cabal can stop the SNP being the powerbrokers after the election.

Cynical? perhaps, but funnier things have happened and if it does it will illustrate for once and for all the hypocrisy of UK politics.
A coming together of left and right in the National Interest now where have I heard that before??

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,allan conn
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:24 PM

Nigel i think you maybe missed the point of my post. How can UKIP dictate the policies of,for instance,the Spanish gvt?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:53 PM

The reality is as ever somewhere in the middle. Nobody says unfettered immigration is a good thing and here in The UK we don't have it. Both this government and the previous one have made qualifying for citizenship harder.

If we exited The EU, we would still have the same situation with EU citizens, as Norway and others have seen. A common trading zone needs freedom of movement in the job market.

Unless as I said before, some politician has an action plan to replace our trading overnight because the vast majority is within The EU and of the rest, a large portion is due to our EU gateway.

Labour and SNP recognise this and to a degree so do LibDem. I am bemused to see so many Tories not understanding how business and prosperity works.

Two issues here. Prosperity and who gets to benefit from it. The tories and UKIP have a different view of the latter than the others. The others are the only ones addressing the former.

Labour and SNP are committed to The EU. So am I.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:30 PM

Thanks, Keith. Proving a point that politicians tell you what you want to hear while proper research gives us a different picture.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 11:15 AM

Daily Mirror last November,

"The arrival of large numbers of unskilled immigrants has been blamed by politicians on all sides for driving down wages for UK workers."

"Meanwhile, during a speech to right-wing think tank Policy Exchange, Home Secretary Theresa May said: "There is evidence too that immigration puts a downward pressure on wages."

Labour's Ed Miliband has also weighed in: "When millions of workers already have low pay and poor job security in Britain and we add high levels of low-skilled migration, mostly from within the EU, some benefit but some lose out. It isn't prejudiced to believe that."

But a study published in March by the University of Oxford's Migration Observatory argued that the true picture is far more complicated.

Researchers found that overall immigration actually leads to a rise in the average wage of all workers – although increased competition for low-paid or unskilled jobs can lead to wages falling. There can be little doubt that those suffering most are already at the bottom of the wages pile."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/does-immigration-lower-our-wages-4670067

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:23 AM

Unregulated immigration has helped drive down wages, but profits are still bring made, through zero hours contracts and short time working.

Now, therein lies a tale, thought ake will not believe anything written by those who he sees as enemies. Immigrant labour is still subject to minimum wage, unless they are working illegally which no amount of regulation will prevent. Zero hours contracts and short time working - Yes, I would agree those things are helping the unscrupulous to make more money. It is the profits being made that are the thing. Unregulated capitalism is indeed a scourge but think back to how things were in the 60's and 70's when the labour unions held the power. I am firmly of the opinion that this caused the Tory backlash that was Thatcherism, that we are still suffering from. As I have tried to explain before we need both labour and capital in balance to achieve economic stability and social justice. Until people from both sides of the fence work in unison, rather than against each other, we will not achieve either.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 09:42 AM

I know the Brits abroad stereotype is one of them all being pensioners but is that actually correct? Not according to the FT which claims that out of the 1.8 million Britons living elsewhere in Europe 400,000 are claiming a state pension so about 78% are not British pensioners. 22% are pensioners which is slightly higher than their share of the UK population which is about 17% but not that much higher. So there potentially could be 1 million Brits have their rights to abode in Spain at risk! Do UKIP consider this. Just how do you think Spanish residents would be able to come back with their assets if their assets are tied up in Spanish property which is at a low!

Surely UKIP or the Tory right can say what it would offer existing immigrants from the EU but they have no control over how other EU countries would view the situation?

I don't think UKIP are planning on sending anyone back, just on restricting further immigration. So the analogy with UK ex-pats having to come back isn't a valid one. "Tit-for-tat" restrictions would just restrict new emigration of ex-pats.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 08:38 AM

Waffle.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 08:01 AM

I am prepared to accept your figures Allan, but that does not address the large number of young people born here who have no chance of a decent life or decent wages.

Unregulated immigration has helped drive down wages, but profits are still bring made, through zero hours contracts and short time working.
Everything is geared to making money, they say we cant afford to re train or apprentice our people.
As I mentioned already a Rumanian worker can exist in the most basic living accommodation on below the minimum wage, and with the top ups available for children in Rumania can afford to send home enough to build a new home in a few years.

This would be absolutely impossible for a young UK couple.
We are being conned, and I hope to see the SNP get out of the EU soon after Independence.....we cannot afford to keep a generation on pared down benefits, we need to give all our young folks a decent life.

Economic immigration, also affects society in the countries from which they come, who is going to look after the sick and build the homes in Eastern Europe?......another method of driving down wages?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 07:08 AM

The trick Mike is to tell your wife you are cancelling each other but sneak out to the polling booth.

Politics is a dirty business.....

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 06:41 AM

I am, Mike, apart from my knees which will probably need a good NHS in a few years so you may guess who I will not be voting for:-) Thanks for asking and responding.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 05:24 AM

Hi Dave

I have seen your second message.

I know that I should vote as it is a valuable possession in a democracy.

The reason why I said I wouldn't is because I will vote Labour but my wife votes Tory so we cancel each other out....so to speak.

We have discussed it and we will both turn out as we feel we can't discuss the election if we haven't voted.

Hope you are well

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 04:46 AM

I know the Brits abroad stereotype is one of them all being pensioners but is that actually correct? Not according to the FT which claims that out of the 1.8 million Britons living elsewhere in Europe 400,000 are claiming a state pension so about 78% are not British pensioners. 22% are pensioners which is slightly higher than their share of the UK population which is about 17% but not that much higher. So there potentially could be 1 million Brits have their rights to abode in Spain at risk! Do UKIP consider this. Just how do you think Spanish residents would be able to come back with their assets if their assets are tied up in Spanish property which is at a low!

Surely UKIP or the Tory right can say what it would offer existing immigrants from the EU but they have no control over how other EU countries would view the situation?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cd640f6-9025-11e3-a776-00144feab7de.html#axzz3WKbaZatd

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 04:42 AM

Bloody waste of time. If any party knocks on my door I shall tell them to fuck off.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:24 AM

I'm sure it happens elsewhere but, presumably because I have emailed questions to the candidates, both Labour and Conservatives are now sending me emails daily to persuade me to go canvassing for them. For at least one party, if not both, this would be most unwise.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 12:20 PM

I broke open the lead from my old Blackberry phone just now, interesting to find out which of the wires connect to each of the 4 terminals of the nice angled plug. I am going to wire this to a couple of electret capsules you see - £200 worth of mic quality for less than 50p!!! Has anyone else done that I wonder???

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 11:00 AM

But there is no such word as "marriage" it's marriage.

What you believe is irrelevant. Anybody can marry the person they love and it is the same as any other marriage. I call you Akenaton. Occasionally Akenhateon but I don't call you wife beater even though statistically, Scottish men are more prone to beating their wives.

You see, in public publications, it helps to use the correct terminology.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:16 AM

Do you call "pussycats" invective Dave?

My but you've led a sheltered life! :0)
I regard veiled accusations of racism, colour prejudice and "homophobia" as invective......ever read any of that stuff on here?

No, it was the three things together that were invective as I am sure you well know. Or maybe not considering the level at which you communicate. What veiled accusations are you referring to? I never make veiled accusations I either accuse someone or I don't. What you chose to read into other peoples posts is your problem.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:16 AM

Because, I believe the word is being used out of context when applied to people who oppose homosexual "marriage".

I put marriage in inverted commas, as I believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman, for the reasons I have oft documented.

I have answered your questions, now please stop stalking. It become tiresome after a few years.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:10 AM

"Ever read any of that stuff on here?"

Simple. Click on the blue word above saying "Akenaton." Then go into history of posts. Click on a few at random, especially where the subject is anything to do with gays, travellers and women.

I did have a digest of links to the worst ones that I supplied to Mid Argyll office of Police Scotland and my ISP, British Telecom. You need a strong stomach to click the links though...

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:00 AM

Why is Akenaton's reference to racism and colour prejudice not in quotes, yet homophobia is? And why is marriage in quotes too when it comes to gay people?

Why are some people worth fighting for in terms of getting them equality and not others? What does it say about your understanding of equality?

Its marriage, not "marriage." Its homophobia, not "homophobia." At least going on Mudcat teaches you what they mean when they say "makes your skin crawl"

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:42 AM

I have never said or insinuated that homosexuals were "bad", but support for their "marriage" rights come pretty far down my list of important issues.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:29 AM

Do you call "pussycats" invective Dave?

My but you've led a sheltered life! :0)
I regard veiled accusations of racism, colour prejudice and "homophobia" as invective......ever read any of that stuff on here?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:23 AM

"Been on any gay pride marches too?"

Some things are worth protesting about, even risking life and limb for.
Others are certainly not.

Steve, these immigrant workers are a large part of why wages are piss poor for most working people.....cant you see the conjuring trick?
"liberals" are arguing against the interests of all working people, when they demand unregulated immigration, and the "free movement of labour within the EU".....is definitely NOT up for debate.

We have no alternative but to get out and as Nigel (Parsons) says the markets will still be there ...and many more besides

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:33 AM

from workers

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:32 AM

The outflow of money for workers in this country to their families overseas is notoriously difficult to assess. What is certainly the case is that the vastly greater proportion of it is sent to countries not in the EU. So using that as a reason for our leaving the EU is nonsensical, dishonest - and inhuman. Absolutely piddling set beside the tens of billions of tax evasion by massive corporations and a large number of obscenely-wealthy individuals who employ armies of accountants. At least those minimum-wage migrants are doing something useful. If you want to call yourself a socialist you need to stop demonising hardworking people who struggle on piss-poor, exploitative wages and find a better target.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:29 AM

From: Musket - PM
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 01:40 AM

So Nigel. What happens during the ten years where we find new markets? Eat each other? The whole of the western world is in trade agreements.
If you took the time to read and understand what I wrote:
Your point might have some weight, were it not for the fact that, as trading partners our balance of payments with the rest of the EU shows that we purchase more from them than they do from us. If we were not in the EU the EU would still want to trade with us because it is a source (net) of income for them.
You would see that I envisage no need to search for new markets (or sources of supply) but would welcome the freedom for the country to do so.

As to "eat each other", surely you are not suggesting that the EU would raise an embargo on selling us food? Tariffs against buying from us would be more likely, but as I explained, highly unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:04 AM

And for Dave and others of his ilk ... I need no lectures from you pussiecats.

See, there you go again. Pure invective for no reason at all and you then blame other people when discussions turn into full blown slanging matches. What is 'his ilk'? What lecture did I make? Why call anyone a 'pussiecat' (sic)?

What I have spotted is your fixation with (amongst other things) wealthy pensioners. You seem to think that anyone who has scrimped and saved for their retirement is an enemy of some sort. Do I detect some jealousy by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:59 AM

Been on any gay pride marches too?

I very much doubt you Marched in support of people seen at the time as second-class citizens. Your odious bigotry suggests otherwise.

Still. Your preferred anonymity allows for fantasy and talking bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:40 AM

Allan, the trouble with most UK people living abroad is that they are mainly wealthy pensioners buying houses in Spain and living on their high UK pensions, houses are cheap and their money goes in the exchequer of whichever country thy chose to live in.
Most EU immigrants to the are from very low wage, ex communist countries....there is no exchange of workers TO these countries because it would not be financially viable.
UK immigrants can live basically here on the minimum wage and still send money home to keep their families and in some cases build their own houses.....do you think it would be possible for UK workers to do that in Bulgaria?
As I said before, I don't blame the immigrants...I would have done the same when I was young. I blame consecutive UK governments who as a short term measure saw unregulated immigration as an opportunity to pull themselves out of the hole we were in when our manufacturing sector was binned.

Much cheaper than the proper long term plan to re-train our own young people and pay them decent wages.
There is nothing "left wing" or liberal about allowing unregulated immigration at the present massive rates, it hurts our infrastructure and our young folks chances of a reasonable life.

And for Dave and others of his ilk, it has absolutely nothing to do with race or colour.....I supported the civil rights movement in America and took part in many demonstrations against racial discrimination...some of them very violent, when a member of the CP, so I need no lectures from you pussiecats.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:22 AM

Oh there's one or two worse than you mate... In fact we appear to have a commune of them on here.!

Be good