Labour’s secret Ukip strategy: full details of what the party admits in leaked document

Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2

Labour’s secret Ukip strategy: full details of what the party admits in leaked document
Topic Started: Dec 14 2014, 10:40 PM (605 Views)
Cymru	Dec 14 2014, 10:40 PM Post #1
Alt-Right Posts: 3,504 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11290407/Labours-secret-Ukip-strategy-full-details-of-what-the-party-admits-in-leaked-document.html Very revealing of the utter contempt Labour has of the electorate.



Steve K	Dec 14 2014, 11:15 PM Post #2
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Farage will be smiling



Tytoalba	Dec 14 2014, 11:46 PM Post #3
Senior Member Posts: 7,586 Group: Members Member #36 Joined: Jun 29, 2014	Steve K Dec 14 2014, 11:15 PM Farage will be smiling Its a pity they cannot put as much time and effort into developing policies to improve the country's welfare, as they are doing in trying to defeat UKIP



jaguar	Dec 15 2014, 12:43 AM Post #4
Regular Member Posts: 980 Group: Members Member #26 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	Tytoalba Dec 14 2014, 11:46 PM Steve K Dec 14 2014, 11:15 PM Farage will be smiling Its a pity they cannot put as much time and effort into developing policies to improve the country's welfare, as they are doing in trying to defeat UKIP It's because they don't have any policies to improve the country's welfare. Labour have been in denial about UKIP, but the Heywood and Middleton by-election was a wake-up call, now they are panicking. I wonder if Ed's on the phone to Damian McBride?



krugerman	Dec 15 2014, 09:17 AM Post #5
Regular Member Posts: 1,152 Group: Members Member #11 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	This news is embaressing for Labour, and no doubt the press will attempt to get as much mileage out of it as possible, the issue of immigration is not Labours best topic, the leadership have admitted mistakes, and so the electorate will make their own minds up. I suppose that immigration to Labour is like the NHS to the Conservatives, except that Cameron made false promises about the NHS, or to put it more bluntly, he lied to the nation about the NHS, telling us that the NHS was safe in his hands, no top down reorganisation. The biggest mistake that Labour made concerning immigration was not imposing transitional restrictions on migrants from the new member states of the EU in 2004, but in reality it would only delay their arrival, not stop it. For me personaly, I have absolutely no problem with the principle of free movement of people across Europe, and I do not feel there is any issue regarding the arrival of eastern Europeans after 2004, because contrary to popular belief it did not and has not caused any major or significant problems, except for in a small handfull of isolated areas such as Boston in Lincolnshire. Much of the "problem" surrounding European migration is simply perceived, the numbers of European migrants in the UK are similar in numbers to the number of UK nationals living across Europe. The real issue is immigration from outside the EU, and as a Labour voter I admit that it was too high, but I am not going to pretend that the party I support is perfect, or that mistakes were not made, and it is certainly not a good enough reason to change my vote, because there is no other credible alternative to the appauling government we currently have.



Steve K	Dec 15 2014, 09:28 AM Post #6
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	So much to challenge there Krugerman. Let's start with migration. Are you trying to tell us that millions of migrants are totally disconnected from us having a million unemployed, many more only able to get zero hours jobs and housing prices unaffordable for so many? " contrary to popular belief it did not and has not caused any major or significant problems," anyone believe this?



krugerman	Dec 15 2014, 09:31 AM Post #7
Regular Member Posts: 1,152 Group: Members Member #11 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	jaguar Dec 15 2014, 12:43 AM Tytoalba Dec 14 2014, 11:46 PM Steve K Dec 14 2014, 11:15 PM Farage will be smiling Its a pity they cannot put as much time and effort into developing policies to improve the country's welfare, as they are doing in trying to defeat UKIP It's because they don't have any policies to improve the country's welfare. Labour have been in denial about UKIP, but the Heywood and Middleton by-election was a wake-up call, now they are panicking. I wonder if Ed's on the phone to Damian McBride? With regard to any by-election, they are a peculiar phenomenom, often producing large protest votes against the incumbent party, MP or government. The Heywood and Middleton by-election was not, and is not an indication of the scale or size of Labour support shifting towards UKIP, and though UKIP do pose a threat to Labour, that threat is certainly not as siginificant as is to the Conservatives.



krugerman	Dec 15 2014, 09:36 AM Post #8
Regular Member Posts: 1,152 Group: Members Member #11 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 15 2014, 09:28 AM So much to challenge there Krugerman. Let's start with migration. Are you trying to tell us that millions of migrants are totally disconnected from us having a million unemployed, many more only able to get zero hours jobs and housing prices unaffordable for so many? " contrary to popular belief it did not and has not caused any major or significant problems," anyone believe this? Yes - absolutely There is no connection at all And for those of you who attempt to make a connection, you are simply plucking figures from the air and making wild assertions, at the time of the arrival of the Poles, Czechs and others, did unemployment rise. ?



AndyK	Dec 15 2014, 09:53 AM Post #9
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	krugerman Dec 15 2014, 09:36 AM Steve K Dec 15 2014, 09:28 AM So much to challenge there Krugerman. Let's start with migration. Are you trying to tell us that millions of migrants are totally disconnected from us having a million unemployed, many more only able to get zero hours jobs and housing prices unaffordable for so many? " contrary to popular belief it did not and has not caused any major or significant problems," anyone believe this? Yes - absolutely There is no connection at all And for those of you who attempt to make a connection, you are simply plucking figures from the air and making wild assertions, at the time of the arrival of the Poles, Czechs and others, did unemployment rise. ? and this is why a new Labour government would be a disaster. Because they really are that naive.



Tigger	Dec 15 2014, 09:54 AM Post #10
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	krugerman Dec 15 2014, 09:36 AM Steve K Dec 15 2014, 09:28 AM So much to challenge there Krugerman. Let's start with migration. Are you trying to tell us that millions of migrants are totally disconnected from us having a million unemployed, many more only able to get zero hours jobs and housing prices unaffordable for so many? " contrary to popular belief it did not and has not caused any major or significant problems," anyone believe this? Yes - absolutely There is no connection at all And for those of you who attempt to make a connection, you are simply plucking figures from the air and making wild assertions, at the time of the arrival of the Poles, Czechs and others, did unemployment rise. ? I suspect unemployment in the domestic workforce did rise, in my line of work cheap and relatively unregulated labour has seen certain employers shunning our own people who simply cannot afford to live on part time wages. The first rung on the jobs market has been raised which will have knock on effects further down the line. Labour should be fearful of UKIP, since becoming Tory Lite and abandoning it's core working class voters in favour of the left leaning urban middle class it has very little left to offer the average blue collar worker. If it swings to the left the right wing press will have a field day and if it moves right there will be more discontent among the rank and file. Labour is caught between a rock and a hard place entirely of it's own making.



Steve K	Dec 15 2014, 10:03 AM Post #11
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	AndyK Dec 15 2014, 09:53 AM krugerman Dec 15 2014, 09:36 AM Steve K Dec 15 2014, 09:28 AM So much to challenge there Krugerman. Let's start with migration. Are you trying to tell us that millions of migrants are totally disconnected from us having a million unemployed, many more only able to get zero hours jobs and housing prices unaffordable for so many? " contrary to popular belief it did not and has not caused any major or significant problems," anyone believe this? Yes - absolutely There is no connection at all And for those of you who attempt to make a connection, you are simply plucking figures from the air and making wild assertions, at the time of the arrival of the Poles, Czechs and others, did unemployment rise. ? and this is why a new Labour government would be a disaster. Because they really are that naive. Quite. I'm not sure what Krugerman is trying to deny - the basics of the Supply v Demand price engine - that migration has increased both the population and workforce - that unemployment is still ~ 1 million - that demand has led to house prices outstripping wages - the oversupply has led to wages under matching house prices Farage and his motley crew may make up rubbish figures on the fly but the underlying essence is still true. You cannot inject so many low pay expecting workers into an economy without significant effects Edited by Steve K, Dec 15 2014, 10:04 AM.



krugerman	Dec 15 2014, 10:39 AM Post #12
Regular Member Posts: 1,152 Group: Members Member #11 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	There is little corelation between European migrants and house prices, the first thing to remember is that very few migrants buy property, the vast majority rent, though admitedly this does have a knock-on effect to a limited degree. The house price boom has much more to do with not enough homes been built for purchase, the government (both Labour and this government) have done very little to help the situation, house builders make huge profits because demand is so high, and the staggering rise in property was well under way before the new EU member states joined in 2004, infact it began in the late 1990s. The simple answer to this is - if there is a housing shortage, build more homes



Steve K	Dec 15 2014, 10:46 AM Post #13
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	krugerman Dec 15 2014, 10:39 AM There is little corelation between European migrants and house prices, the first thing to remember is that very few migrants buy property, the vast majority rent, though admitedly this does have a knock-on effect to a limited degree. The house price boom has much more to do with not enough homes been built for purchase, the government (both Labour and this government) have done very little to help the situation, house builders make huge profits because demand is so high, and the staggering rise in property was well under way before the new EU member states joined in 2004, infact it began in the late 1990s. The simple answer to this is - if there is a housing shortage, build more homes Perhaps you can't see the kink in this curve but I think everyone else will Now look at the long term housing index You cannot just "build more houses" as you say and I note you forget we then have to build more schools, roads, power supply networks etc. There is only so much room and as demand soars the costs of the land and the building itself rise. We have to stabilise the population, unfettered migration from non convergent economies is destabilising.



papasmurf	Dec 15 2014, 11:22 AM Post #14
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 15 2014, 10:46 AM We have to stabilise the population, "We" have to lower the population down to the long term sustainable carrying capacity.



Happy Hornet	Dec 15 2014, 11:48 AM Post #15
Senior Member Posts: 4,765 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Damn right PS, I suggest we start by shipping out all the pensioners, they are just taking up valuable space and resources. You understand that I'm not prejudiced, just being practical, we have to get the numbers down or nature will do it for us.



papasmurf	Dec 15 2014, 11:52 AM Post #16
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Happy Hornet Dec 15 2014, 11:48 AM Damn right PS, I suggest we start by shipping out all the pensioners, I suggest we start shipping out all those and their offspring who arrived after the 2nd World War.



Happy Hornet	Dec 15 2014, 11:57 AM Post #17
Senior Member Posts: 4,765 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Sorry PS but my solution makes more practical sense, now off you pop.



papasmurf	Dec 15 2014, 11:57 AM Post #18
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Happy Hornet Dec 15 2014, 11:57 AM Sorry PS but my solution makes more practical sense, now off you pop. No it does not at all and you know it.



Happy Hornet	Dec 15 2014, 12:02 PM Post #19
Senior Member Posts: 4,765 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Yes it does, I'm of post war immigrant stock and (health permitting) I have another 30 years of working and tax paying ahead of me. The country needs people like me. We don't however need pensioners like you. Explain to me the PRACTICAL flaws in my argument. Edited by Happy Hornet, Dec 15 2014, 12:03 PM.



AndyK	Dec 15 2014, 12:05 PM Post #20
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	Happy Hornet Dec 15 2014, 12:02 PM Yes it does, I'm of post war immigrant stock and (health permitting) I have another 30 years of working and tax paying ahead of me. The country needs people like me. We don't however need pensioners like you. Explain to me the PRACTICAL flaws in my argument. The pensioners are living off their own saved money.



Happy Hornet	Dec 15 2014, 12:11 PM Post #21
Senior Member Posts: 4,765 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Andy, you should know that I don't advocate any such thing, I consider the whole idea monstrous. I was merely trying to give PS a taste of his own medicine so he can see how it feels to have people advocating having you forcibly removed from your own country. I notice that whilst PS and I have advocated the same policy but with a different choice of target and yet you have only challenged one of us. Is there a reason for this?



papasmurf	Dec 15 2014, 12:21 PM Post #22
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Happy Hornet Dec 15 2014, 12:02 PM Explain to me the PRACTICAL flaws in my argument. They are Citizens of Britain with a long ancestry here where are you going to move them to? If they took all their assets with them the country would be in serious trouble. Most volunteer organisation would have to shut down. (That is just for start.)



Happy Hornet	Dec 15 2014, 12:25 PM Post #23
Senior Member Posts: 4,765 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Well firstly the ancestry argument is an emotive argument not a practical one. Most of the people you would have removed are British citizens with nowhere else to go and they also possess a tremendous amount of assets including businesses providing employment that British families depend on. ALL of the practical flaws in my argument also apply to yours, only yours has the added flaw that many of the people you would have removed are themselves pensioners, the very people you claim that we can't cope without. Edited by Happy Hornet, Dec 15 2014, 12:34 PM.



papasmurf	Dec 15 2014, 12:49 PM Post #24
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Happy Hornet Dec 15 2014, 12:25 PM Well firstly the ancestry argument is an emotive argument not a practical one. It is a practical argument, you just won't accept it. Immigration should never have been allowed after the 2nd World War, because of the detailed land survey carried out for the War Agricultural Executive Committees (WARAG.) The type of land and it's potential for food production for every square yard of Britain was detailed. That is why the WARAGs ordered farmers what to grow. But production still fell well short of the amount of food needed, to support the population, and it still does by a very big margin even using the current non sustainable methods. None of this effects me because it won't be long before I am dead, and I made sure I never fathered any children so I have no children for them to have to face the serious problems caused by over population in the not too distant future. ALL immigration has been madness since the 2nd Work War and I see no reason whatsoever, that the for want of a better word, indigenous population should pay for the short termism of all governments since 1945.



Happy Hornet	Dec 15 2014, 01:01 PM Post #25
Senior Member Posts: 4,765 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	PS, it is an emotive argument, ones ancestry is an accident of birth. I can't help my ancestry any more than a disabled person can help the fact that they were born disabled. Yet you argue for equality for the disabled and persecution for people like me. And as to paying for the mistakes of previous of government's if it's wrong to ask indigenous Brits to do so, then surely it's also wrong to ask Brits like me of immigrant stock to pay for the mistakes of government policy enacted decades before I was born? Again, the only difference between me and you is an accident of birth. There is also the point that many of the people you would expel are themselves pensioners. One the one hand you argue we can't cope without pensioners, on the other you advocate kicking out a shed load of pensioners. Edited by Happy Hornet, Dec 15 2014, 01:04 PM.



RJD	Dec 15 2014, 01:03 PM Post #26
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Happy Hornet Dec 15 2014, 11:48 AM Damn right PS, I suggest we start by shipping out all the pensioners, they are just taking up valuable space and resources. You understand that I'm not prejudiced, just being practical, we have to get the numbers down or nature will do it for us. Can we take our savings with us?



Happy Hornet	Dec 15 2014, 01:05 PM Post #27
Senior Member Posts: 4,765 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD, see my reply in post 21. Same question to you, any reason you've challenged me and not PS?



RJD	Dec 15 2014, 01:09 PM Post #28
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Happy Hornet Dec 15 2014, 01:01 PM PS, it is an emotive argument, ones ancestry is an accident of birth. I can't help my ancestry any more than a disabled person can help the fact that they were born disabled. Yet you argue for equality for the disabled and persecution for people like me. And as to paying for the mistakes of previous of government's if it's wrong to ask indigenous Brits to do so, then surely it's also wrong to ask Brits like me of immigrant stock to pay for the mistakes of government policy enacted decades before I was born? Again, the only difference between me and you is an accident of birth. There is also the point that many of the people you would expel are themselves pensioners. One the one hand you argue we can't cope without pensioners, on the other you advocate kicking out a shed load of pensioners. You may have been the one that benefited from your immigrant genes. I think there is an economic case to export those that are unproductive and import a few more of those hard working East Europeans. I believe that every person carrying a British Passport is as British as any other and ancestry is bunk. I would be a Republican is position of Head of State was denied to Politicians.



papasmurf	Dec 15 2014, 01:20 PM Post #29
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Happy Hornet Dec 15 2014, 01:01 PM One the one hand you argue we can't cope without pensioners, on the other you advocate kicking out a shed load of pensioners. I advocate as the least worst option kicking out those who arrived here after 1945 and their offspring.



Happy Hornet	Dec 15 2014, 01:22 PM Post #30
Senior Member Posts: 4,765 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	But PS many of those people will be pensioners, according to you they are indispensable.



RJD	Dec 15 2014, 01:24 PM Post #31
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 15 2014, 01:20 PM Happy Hornet Dec 15 2014, 01:01 PM One the one hand you argue we can't cope without pensioners, on the other you advocate kicking out a shed load of pensioners. I advocate as the least worst option kicking out those who arrived here after 1945 and their offspring. Better kick out the feckless and idle no matter whence they came. I see no sense in supporting any idle Anglii-Saxii or Celt just because he claims a bunch of genes. Racist nonsense.



papasmurf	Dec 15 2014, 01:25 PM Post #32
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Happy Hornet Dec 15 2014, 01:22 PM But PS many of those people will be pensioners, according to you they are indispensable. I was referring to the "indigenous" one's no the immigrant one's from 1945.



Happy Hornet	Dec 15 2014, 01:33 PM Post #33
Senior Member Posts: 4,765 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Oh I see PS, do pensioners of immigrant stock not have assets or do volunteer work for charities then? And you have proof of this I presume?



papasmurf	Dec 15 2014, 01:38 PM Post #34
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Happy Hornet Dec 15 2014, 01:33 PM Oh I see PS, do pensioners of immigrant stock not have assets or do volunteer work for charities then? And you have proof of this I presume? That is irrelevant. (Seriously) What bit of least worst option did you not understand?



Happy Hornet	Dec 15 2014, 01:41 PM Post #35
Senior Member Posts: 4,765 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	How is it irrelevant? You say we can't cope without pensioners but we can cope without pensioners of indigenous stock. Why is it one group of pensioners is indispensable and the other wholly dispensable?



papasmurf	Dec 15 2014, 01:49 PM Post #36
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Happy Hornet Dec 15 2014, 01:41 PM How is it irrelevant? You say we can't cope without pensioners but we can cope without pensioners of indigenous stock. Why is it one group of pensioners is indispensable and the other wholly dispensable? I am not going to clog up the forum with a long timewasting debate with you. It is a waste of time because you just cannot understand the problem of the over the long term sustain population carrying capacity Britain has. I made sure it won't effect me in my life time, so you can think what you like.



Montjoie	Dec 15 2014, 02:19 PM Post #37
Regular Member Posts: 1,205 Group: Members Member #7 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	AndyK Dec 15 2014, 12:05 PM Happy Hornet Dec 15 2014, 12:02 PM Yes it does, I'm of post war immigrant stock and (health permitting) I have another 30 years of working and tax paying ahead of me. The country needs people like me. We don't however need pensioners like you. Explain to me the PRACTICAL flaws in my argument. The pensioners are living off their own saved money. The good old myth of saved money. Issue is that it's mostly under the form of promises (bonds, etc.) which may have been acquired way too easily from extra money available which should have been used back then to make sure the debt didn't pile up so fast and so high. Debt which was partially fueled by mechanisms which helped buy such promises at a discount.



Happy Hornet	Dec 15 2014, 02:24 PM Post #38
Senior Member Posts: 4,765 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	PS I understand the problem of over population, what I query is your supposed solution. It is clear to me that you have tripped over your own argument but I suspect that you would rather see the whole world perish in a fiery apocalypse than admit to being in the wrong so I will leave it at that.



krugerman	Dec 15 2014, 02:49 PM Post #39
Regular Member Posts: 1,152 Group: Members Member #11 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 15 2014, 10:46 AM krugerman Dec 15 2014, 10:39 AM There is little corelation between European migrants and house prices, the first thing to remember is that very few migrants buy property, the vast majority rent, though admitedly this does have a knock-on effect to a limited degree. The house price boom has much more to do with not enough homes been built for purchase, the government (both Labour and this government) have done very little to help the situation, house builders make huge profits because demand is so high, and the staggering rise in property was well under way before the new EU member states joined in 2004, infact it began in the late 1990s. The simple answer to this is - if there is a housing shortage, build more homes Perhaps you can't see the kink in this curve but I think everyone else will Now look at the long term housing index You cannot just "build more houses" as you say and I note you forget we then have to build more schools, roads, power supply networks etc. There is only so much room and as demand soars the costs of the land and the building itself rise. We have to stabilise the population, unfettered migration from non convergent economies is destabilising. The graphs illustrate my point nicely, the steep rise in house prices began long before 2004, infact the average London house price hit the £100,000 barrier in 1998 and continued rising sharply, thats 6 years before the EU enlargement. The UK wide average house prices hit the £100,000 barrier between 2001 and 2002, allready on a steep rise, they continued rising until the financial crisis. I have just checked on the Rightmove website, there are plenty of very nice detached 4 bed houses for sale in Boston for under £200,000, this is the area which has the highest number of eastern European immigrants per capita of anywhere in the country, thats cheaper than the area where I live. Its all well and good linking Labour to increased immigration, but I would politely remind you that it was Ted Heath who signed the Treaty of Rome, it was John Major and Margaret Thatcher who signed the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Amsterdam, which sets out the free movement of people across the European Economic Area. As stated previously, the best that Blair could have done was to delay the arrival of the eastern Europeans.



RJD	Dec 15 2014, 02:57 PM Post #40
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Not true Krug, Blair and Brown could have recognised it as a problem that would have ongoing repercussions, they did not, they did the opposite. Claiming they were hamstrung by EU regulations is a cop out.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2