• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

The UKIPs.

Meat Pie

TS Member
I hate to give these interminable git holes any more undeserved coverage but it has been brought to my attention that this forum has become stale on the keyboard warrior-ing and the rage spitting fury inducing debate front. To remedy the situation I had to pull out a right wretched subject to warm the cockles of TST's beautiful inner seething anger which I know is hiding just under the surface.

So I present to you a question - Why is UKIP doing quite so well and do they deserve success?

The reason they have done so well in my opinion is because there is a widespread understanding that something is desperately wrong with the socio-economic arrangement we live under but have been subjected to many many years of immigrant scapegoating. Whether it was with The Sun or The Mail, or any of the major new distribution sources who understood from the beginning that mistrust of that which is foreign is a great way to make newspaper sales, or whether it was from both the major political parties wheeling out the so-called 'issues' brought with immigration as a convenient distraction from serious structural economic and democratic failures (despite having no intention of implementing a restrictive immigration policy), people have been taking on board a largely unchallenged anti-migrant sentiment for decades --- scratch that, for centuries. So when the UKIPS come around with a slightly more tolerable approach than the BNP, they are able to make all manner of outrageous claims in relation to immigration and they are readily accepted as fact by the media's well trained minds which will not be changed despite the facts contravening every misguided belief.

This is why the UKIPS have been able to succeed, despite until last year having a policy to completely privatise the NHS in a model that would resemble the US model, like Nigel Farage was himself filmed advocating, and despite having policies that massively restrict workers rights, and despite having policies that cut tax for the richest 1% whilst increasing it for some of the poorest people in society.

The biggest problem has been that immigration has been allowed to dominate the conversation. If immigration is always presented in media to be an area for legitimate serious concern, then it reinforces the notion that it is a problem. All the while, the real massive issues such as the Banking corruption, the gigantic corporate tax avoidance, the proposed trans-atlantic trade deal, is all being swept under the carpet and forgotten about. These are the real sources of trouble in our society. When people complain about immigrants taking their jobs, actually that problem is a lack of jobs for everyone because they have been outsourced to third world slaves. If manufacturing was brought back to Britain (with a great deal of investment into renewable energy construction thrown in for good measure) with an enforced living wage there would be plenty of jobs and no-one would suffer the indignity of slave-like wages. When people claim that the local population are being undercut by immigrant workers, the problem here again isn't the dis-empowered migrants, it is the employers who will pick the people most desperate and therefore willing to work for pitiful money because they can. If the the minimum wage was set at a non-negotiable living wage and this was enforced properly with serious criminal consequences for those employers who didn't pay it, then there could be no claim of immigrants undercutting. Wherever there is a problem levied at the migrants, there is always someone with more power who is to blame for the problem and a fairer solution which means those responsible face justice, rather than having immigrants being prevented from coming here.

There is a whole other debate to be had about UKIP's anti EU stance which is also concerning, which isn't completely (mostly but not completely) without merit, but I certainly think is misguided in the extreme. That said I do not think it needs quite the same attention seeing as UKIPs power base definitely comes from the more anti-immigration/anti-multi-multiculturalism sentiments than the anti-EU sentiments.

Anywho... Over to you.
 
Last edited:
There's only one way to really stop immigration. Make the country so bad that no one wants to go there. People want to come to Britain because they think it'll give them a better life. Surely in our aspirational post-Thatcher world of capitalist ambition, they should be commended for trying to further their opportunities? We've an ageing population and falling birth rate, like pretty much all highly developed countries. We need young immigrants whether people like it or not. Wish UKIP would be called out on their claim to be a libertarian party. Denying the freedom of movement of the labour, having the state strongly interfere with free movement, is plainly not libertarian. And anyone with half a brain can see they're just as establishment as the rest.

Immigration is a thing that should be discussed. And it is, it's always on the news and has been long before UKIP were a big thing. But the only ones not willing to have a sensible discussion about it, is in fact UKIP. Scaremongering, lies and hysteria do not a sensible discussion make.
 
Why is UKIP doing quite so well and do they deserve success?

Fear is big business and it always will be - just as it sells newspapers.

They are right - leaving the EU will not hurt the government's tax receipts, in fact it might make them a little higher. However, the EU acts as a liberal/left safety net that keeps the government in check. Leaving the EU would be a disaster on a sociological level, particularly in terms of workers' rights. The EU has been the best thing for ending big business ripoffs. Things like zero-hours contracts (something which got past the EU/hasn't been dealt with yet) would become commonplace. Conversely, if it wasn't for the EU's 'meddling' employers would be allowed to sack people if they refuse to work 80 hours a week etc, and you wouldn't have to get paid by your employer while you're on holiday either.

What Ps Farage (and Cameron, who won't admit it) is that the EU interferes with the government - and not our individual lives as they suggest.
 
Ah it nice to see you back MP.

So why are UKIP doing so well in the polls? Largely I would say a protest vote, basically the protest vote used to go to the lib dems but since those traitors got themselves into government by promising to even up the boundaries in return for a vote on proportional rep. (Which they lost and then refused their end of the agreement, so we now end up with the possibility of a destructive Lab / SNP coalition) the anti government brigade have nowhere to go except UKIP.
Then we also have the out of Europe brigade which also back them when if they had any sense they would vote tory as it's the only chance of getting a vote on the membership of the EU.
I hate UKIP as as I've said above they will end up costing the Tories the next election and then we will end up with that prat Miliband and his prat of a mate Balls, almost certainly propped up by Salmond and the SNP.
So we will end up in England being ruled by Scottish MP'S making decisions that don't affect them! You couldn't make it up, what a joke.

I largely agree with a lot of what you have said though Meatpie but would make one point.

Whilst we need a certain amount of immigrants they have suppressed wages especially at the lower end of the pay scale.
In the industry I work in (food process) they used to pay a living wage salary but once the Polish arrived they now only pay minimum wage to most employees including the more skilled jobs.
This has directly undercut the local workforce so they have a choice, work for minimum wage or go on the dole.

This has directly effected the lowest paid in our society making them poorer, New Labours legacy, that is the genuine reason why the so called working class is turning to UKIP not bigotry.

Note: apologies for the grammar and spelling but I'm away and am using one of those horrible fruit devices.
 
Or the government's for not raising the minimum wage or doing something about the cost of housing, which is the main cause of rising living costs. I don't think things have ever been easy for people at the bottom, but in real terms wages have got lower for those at the bottom of the scale (particularly due to most employers getting rid of Sunday and holiday supplements, coupled with pushing zero hour contracts to the limit). At the same time house prices have been allowed to sky rocket out of control, particularly around London. This has a lot to do with the buy to let market.

When Margaret Thatcher became prime minister, my Granny said, ‘it’s great that we’ve got a female prime minister, it’s just a shame it’s this one’ (bear in mind my Grandad was a miner). I kind of feel the same about the rise of UKIP. It’s great to have a fourth party with real power (potentially five if the SNP make headway). It’s just a shame it has to be UKIP: A far right wing party who want to bring back blood sports, get rid of the BBC, get rid of inheritance tax and lower income tax by cutting funding for education, and who want to encourage people from poorer backgrounds to do apprenticeships instead of GCSEs [the haven’t specifically said people from poorer backgrounds, but it’s hard to imagine Eton taking them up on the offer]. I don’t think UKIP are much of a protest vote, but Stewart Lee makes the case stronger than I do.
 
Last edited:
Lots of reasons why UKIP are doing so well - the biggest being that no other political party, at the moment, is listening to the public, so the votes are going to UKIP.

Immigration is of course the biggest complaint amongst the voters. And rightly so. It cannot go on uncontrolled the way it is. If I want to go and live in, erm, lets say Canada, I cant just turn up with my family and demand to be housed and have money handed to me. So why is that acceptable in the UK? Why are people coming over here, just for the benefits, or the free healthcare.

Regardless what some may think, I dont have a problem with people coming into this country (I do have a problem with people coming in purely to spread hate or cause death and destruction in the name of religion), but anyone coming into this country should go through the same sort of assessment procedure that you, or I would have to go through if we wanted to live abroad. Why are there so many people in Calais waiting to come to the UK? Why dont they stay in France, or any other EU country, you cant deny the reason they are coming to the UK is for the ease of getting somewhere to live, and money.

This has a knock on effect for everything in this country. The NHS cannot cope any longer with the huge numbers of people living here, the Police service is having its ratio of police to public reduced as more and more people live in our towns and cities, schools struggle with having so many children (and languages) to teach and accommodate, tows and cities struggle with finding places for all these people to live etc. Again, these things can be addressed, and can be fixed, but only with a more robust and secure UK border to control immigration numbers. Counties like Canada, US, Australia have it right, they set a number that they can allow in during any year and stick to it.

Its something that's been ignored for too long, and people are sick to the teeth of being ignored. If people want to come to the UK to work, to contribute, to integrate and be part of the UK, then fine, I have no problem whatsoever. If someone wants to come here purely for free handouts, with no intention of working, or with the intention of claiming benefits to send back to their home country to build themselves a nice mansion to live in, then yes, I do have a problem with that.

Whats the UK population up to now anyway? Just quickly googling it, 64m people. To put that into context, the UK is 243km(2) in size. France, has a population of 66m but is three times the size of the UK!! Again, no one can deny there has to be questions asked about do we want to just concrete over the UK and turn it into one huge city full of houses and high rise apartment blocks, or do we look to have some control over people coming to live here?

Then there is the EU itself and the fact it is making laws for us. People are sick of this, and sick of the money we pump into the EU every year, only for them to dictate what we should or shouldn't be doing - for example, what size fruit and veg must be sold in supermarkets, EU court of human rights etc. I like the fact we are in the EU don't get me wrong, but I do question the amount of money we have to pay to be in it, and what it gets us. I think a lot of UKIP voters want to remain in the EU, but, what they perhaps want to see is the UK being more forthcoming in questioning where the money goes, and saying "no" to some of the demands of the EU.

I think they are the two biggest gripes people have today, and these are the two things that all political parties up to now have completely ignored to grasp just how deeply public opinion is on these things.

For me personally, I dont want UKIP to come into power no, however, i'm glad they have done as well as they have up to now BUT for the reason that they have finally got the main political parties to sit up and actually take notice of how their voters are feeling. I think its come as a huge shock to them and its good that this has happened. When it comes to the general election however, what concerns me is that at the moment, all 3 main parties are quite frankly useless and not worthy of any vote. Conservatives will continue to wreck the country, Labour even more so with their pathetic leader, and Lib Dems, erm, are they still around anymore??? What I see is a lot of people voting for UKIP as (1) a protest vote and (2) because they dont know who else to vote for.

Thats the worry. I dont ever see UKIP getting into power, but until the main parties pull their fingers out and start really addressing the problems in this country and listening to the people, then I see more and more votes going to UKIP from disgruntled voters.

Edit : just one point I want to pick up from the post above. "Discourage people from poorer backgrounds to do apprenticeships instead of GCSE's". Not sure if poorer was said but my response to this, for anyone from any background is GOOD! Apprenticeships we need more of in this country. Not everyone is good in the exam room. Apprenticeships get people out, into employment, get them hands on learning (especially good when there actually was manufacturing in this country), gets them skilled and used to get them a full time job as well so my response to this would actually be a positive one. Its a pity there are hardly any apprenticeships out there anymore!
 
Last edited:
Any fixed minimum wage - no matter what name you apply to it, 'living' or otherwise - plays straight into businesses' hands and eliminates competition. It's affectively a conspiracy of silence, an unspoken way of price fixing.

With regards to immigration bringing wages down, it's actually the case that many British people would rather not work when they can earn benefits of a certain amount.
 
no other political party, at the moment, is listening to the public, so the votes are going to UKIP.
UKIP aren't either.


Immigration is of course the biggest complaint amongst the voters.
As of only recently, thanks to years of being told to complain about it.


If I want to go and live in, erm, lets say Canada, I cant just turn up with my family and demand to be housed and have money handed to me. So why is that acceptable in the UK?
You can't just move to DPRK either, should we be looking to north Korea for inspiration?

Why are people coming over here, just for the benefits, or the free healthcare.
Health tourism is a myth, you can't automatically get a lot of benefits, and what's wrong with wanting to live in a country with better access to health care? When the NHS was set up, they said absolutely no one should be excluded, because if you start excluding one group, you can start excluding more. They haven't paid in to the system through tax and NI? Neither have children. Immigrants are actually less likely to claim benefits.

Regardless what some may think, I dont have a problem with people coming into this country (I do have a problem with people coming in purely to spread hate or cause death and destruction in the name of religion), but anyone coming into this country should go through the same sort of assessment procedure that you, or I would have to go through if we wanted to live abroad. Why are there so many people in Calais waiting to come to the UK? Why dont they stay in France, or any other EU country, you cant deny the reason they are coming to the UK is for the ease of getting somewhere to live, and money.
There's lots of British people who preach hate too, and commit crimes, for various reasons. They want to come here because Britain likes to promote itself as a country that is tolerant, fair, and full of opportunities. We know that's not true but they don't. Britain also loves to sell its image, just like any other country. Lots of people here want to emigrate to say Spain or America based on their idealised fantasies of what life there will be like. Worth noting that a lot of British emigrants are retired, placing strain on their new country's economy, unlike the majority of immigrants who are young, and who, according to the figures, have a net benefit and, again, are actually less likely to be on benefits.

This has a knock on effect for everything in this country. The NHS cannot cope any longer with the huge numbers of people living here, the Police service is having its ratio of police to public reduced as more and more people live in our towns and cities, schools struggle with having so many children (and languages) to teach and accommodate, tows and cities struggle with finding places for all these people to live etc. Again, these things can be addressed, and can be fixed, but only with a more robust and secure UK border to control immigration numbers. Counties like Canada, US, Australia have it right, they set a number that they can allow in during any year and stick to it.
Actually what's causing the health service to fall apart is what the government are doing to it. There's no homes because councils were never given money to build new ones after their stocks got bought by renters and landlords. Countries with tighter immigration controls still have to educate the children of their immigrants, who speak various languages, the openness of our borders makes little difference. You should probably actually read in to Australia's system, it's barbaric. They're thrown on a camp on a desert island, often families are split and often they are denied water. If anything, it would lead to more illegal immigration, people less able to get in or less willing to go through the process will still try to get in.

Lots of reasons why UKIP are doing so well - the biggest being that no other political party, at the moment, is listening to the public, so the votes are going to UKIP.

Immigration is of course the biggest complaint amongst the voters. And rightly so. It cannot go on uncontrolled the way it is. If I want to go and live in, erm, lets say Canada, I cant just turn up with my family and demand to be housed and have money handed to me. So why is that acceptable in the UK? Why are people coming over here, just for the benefits, or the free healthcare.

Regardless what some may think, I dont have a problem with people coming into this country (I do have a problem with people coming in purely to spread hate or cause death and destruction in the name of religion), but anyone coming into this country should go through the same sort of assessment procedure that you, or I would have to go through if we wanted to live abroad. Why are there so many people in Calais waiting to come to the UK? Why dont they stay in France, or any other EU country, you cant deny the reason they are coming to the UK is for the ease of getting somewhere to live, and money.

This has a knock on effect for everything in this country. The NHS cannot cope any longer with the huge numbers of people living here, the Police service is having its ratio of police to public reduced as more and more people live in our towns and cities, schools struggle with having so many children (and languages) to teach and accommodate, tows and cities struggle with finding places for all these people to live etc. Again, these things can be addressed, and can be fixed, but only with a more robust and secure UK border to control immigration numbers. Counties like Canada, US, Australia have it right, they set a number that they can allow in during any year and stick to it.

Its something that's been ignored for too long, and people are sick to the teeth of being ignored. If people want to come to the UK to work, to contribute, to integrate and be part of the UK, then fine, I have no problem whatsoever. If someone wants to come here purely for free handouts, with no intention of working, or with the intention of claiming benefits to send back to their home country to build themselves a nice mansion to live in, then yes, I do have a problem with that.
It really hasn't been ignored. The Tories ran a campaign about black immigrants in a bye election in Birmingham in the 70s - "If you desire a coloured for a neighbour vote Labour, if you are already burdened with one vote Tory" Again, this idea of people coming to not do anything and soak up the benefits is a myth. Is it ok for them to work and send that money home? It's their money, they can do what they like with it. Even if they manage to blag JSA despite not looking for work (easier said than done, whatever the Tories and the media would have you believe), anyone who can build a mansion on the leftovers of £70 a week, should frankly be brought over here and put about building HS2 for a lot less than the £50bn or so it's going to cost us.

Whats the UK population up to now anyway? Just quickly googling it, 64m people. To put that into context, the UK is 243km(2) in size. France, has a population of 66m but is three times the size of the UK!! Again, no one can deny there has to be questions asked about do we want to just concrete over the UK and turn it into one huge city full of houses and high rise apartment blocks, or do we look to have some control over people coming to live here?
Population growth is also driven by births. Could always do what China do and limit how many kids you can have? Doubt many people would be in favour of that, and rightfully so. We do have a growing population, we do need places to put people, and we only have limited space, but there's more than people seem to think. France is also seeing a rise in anti-immigration sentiments, despite having three times more space than we do. The immigration debate isn't really about space.

Then there is the EU itself and the fact it is making laws for us. People are sick of this, and sick of the money we pump into the EU every year, only for them to dictate what we should or shouldn't be doing - for example, what size fruit and veg must be sold in supermarkets, EU court of human rights etc. I like the fact we are in the EU don't get me wrong, but I do question the amount of money we have to pay to be in it, and what it gets us. I think a lot of UKIP voters want to remain in the EU, but, what they perhaps want to see is the UK being more forthcoming in questioning where the money goes, and saying "no" to some of the demands of the EU.
How dare they set food standards, ensuring the food we buy is of good quality. I agree, the EU, as it stands, is corrupt, undemocratic and dangerous. It's also the reason there's no wars in Europe any more, and opens the country up for business with the continent. The European market is much bigger than ours, it makes sense to be part of it. I'd rather it be reformed and less intrusive than leave. But UKIP aren't the only anti-EU party. The UK's next biggest party, the Greens, want a referendum and dislike the EU, and there's plenty of smaller parties from across the spectrum. Human rights are a great thing, there's a reason UKIP and the Tories want out. It's the same reason Thatcher went to war with unions and why Johnson bought himself some illegal riot control vehicles. But having the EU set laws is just another part of the undemocratic centralisation of power that has been going on for decades. It started with removing power from local governments, centralising it in one place in the country, now they're centralising power across the entire continent This is completely antidemocratic but leaving the EU would not be enough, people should have more say in their own community than just sending one person to London every five years and hoping for the best, and councils that are now effectively just puppets of the state, spending however much the state says on whatever the state says. It's worth noting also, that the fishing law that Farage loved to use as an example of the EU being bad for Britain was changed, not by Farage, who was on the fisheries commission but never turned up, but by a petition led by a tv chef. That's the grim state democracy is in now.

I think its come as a huge shock to them and its good that this has happened.
All it has done is push the Tories even further right to stop the desertion they have on their hands, and push Labour, against the wishes of their supporters (the ones who aren't Blairites at least), even further right in a desperate and misguided attempt to stay relevant. Where we once had three parties with different positions, we're now approaching them all having the same one.

Thats the worry. I dont ever see UKIP getting into power, but until the main parties pull their fingers out and start really addressing the problems in this country and listening to the people, then I see more and more votes going to UKIP from disgruntled voters.
You're correct here, it's just a shame the party people are turning to are more of the same. There's many more problems than immigration and our role in the EU. UKIP don't even have a manifesto as of yet, so we're left to their old policies and comments by their leaders, which range from terrifying to just plain weird.

Any fixed minimum wage - no matter what name you apply to it, 'living' or otherwise - plays straight into businesses' hands and eliminates competition. It's affectively a conspiracy of silence, an unspoken way of price fixing.

With regards to immigration bringing wages down, it's actually the case that many British people would rather not work when they can earn benefits of a certain amount.
So it should be legal for companies to pay 50p an hour? Like some did before the law? Competitions only work if there's rules. If people can't get a better paying job they have no choice but to take badly paying ones, especially with less power to fight against it now. Any company that can't afford to pay its staff well enough for them to live, by the free market's own rules, deserves to go out of business.
 
Then there is the EU itself and the fact it is making laws for us. People are sick of this, and sick of the money we pump into the EU every year, only for them to dictate what we should or shouldn't be doing - for example, what size fruit and veg must be sold in supermarkets, EU court of human rights etc.

What difference does it really make if it's Westminster or the EU making laws though? Neither of those places really cares about the general public of the UK, only difference is the EU doesn't pretend to. Both are just a load of self serving bureaucrats in my eyes, and in my opinion we'd be better of without either of them (Anarcho-Collectivism is the way forward!) than just Westminster in full control, atleast things like the ECHR works in the interests of the working class (as other people have already said) by attempting to control corporate exploitation via things like maternity leave or the minimum wage, which the tories and UKIP would love to get off if they had the chance to do so.

For the record, I think the EU is corrupt and definitely think we should have a referendum on the UK's membership, though us leaving it would surely have far worse effects on the public than the current negative impacts the EU has. The only ones who'd truly benefit would be the ones who'd then be able to force more zero hour contracts and lower wages upon the already borderline poverty threatened working class.

As for the fruit thing, it's literally just quality control so that when you buy fruit it's a decent size/shape, I really don't see how anyone can actually find that a bad thing, especially so bad it's become a genuine political issue to some people?
 
With regards to immigration bringing wages down, it's actually the case that many British people would rather not work when they can earn benefits of a certain amount.

WOW

Mother of Wardley Tom that's the kind of sweeping generalisation about the entire societal fabric of society that will induce me for the first time ever in the history of my posting (I think) on TS to use THIS most revered of debating phrases, usually only used by such TS debating luminaries as @Sam!

[citation needed]
 
WOW

Mother of Wardley Tom that's the kind of sweeping generalisation about the entire societal fabric of society that will induce me for the first time ever in the history of my posting (I think) on TS to use THIS most revered of debating phrases, usually only used by such TS debating luminaries as @Sam!

[citation needed]

Many is a significant number, but I make no claim of it being a majority, representative figure or whatever. Nevertheless, it's true.
 
What I don't understand is the irresponsible IDIOTIC STUPID MORONIC DUMB PRESS PUPPETS INCLUDING THE BBC - who decided that, rather than give a SENSIBLE approach to these matters, such as The Greens, they're all crawling up the backsides of Farage, who seems to me to be an ODIOUS little cretin with far more damaging policies than people realise!

Oh look, we have a little pink pound... am I the only one that finds that ironic from a far right party?

Their slogan should be, purely my opinion based on my reading thus far, in case UKIP decides that free speech is something to be tackled also...:

"STOP GIVING YOUR MONEY TO THE EU, GIVE TO US INSTEAD, SO WE CAN UNLEASH EVEN WORSE POLICIES ON YOU THAN AN UNELECTED BRUSSELS STATE!"

All UKIP have succeeded in doing is dragging EVERYONE to the right, to the point Labour are probably now farther right than Central than some of the more moderate Tories!!

The only one's I see maintaining their position is The Green Party, but they STILL wont get the kind of backing that Farage gets... why?

Because they don't have the backing of vested business interests, they offer very little in media flogging, they're not alarmist or sensationalist, and they stick to their principles and openly publish their manifestos.

Perfect they're not, but compared to the absolute RABBLE of the other 4 almost self parodying Lib/Lab/Con/Kip I am disgusted the press don't stand for their true principles anymore.

Journalists have a responsibility, if you're not there to report PROPERLY, stop calling yourself one.

SELL OUTS!
 
So it should be legal for companies to pay 50p an hour? Like some did before the law? Competitions only work if there's rules. If people can't get a better paying job they have no choice but to take badly paying ones, especially with less power to fight against it now. Any company that can't afford to pay its staff well enough for them to live, by the free market's own rules, deserves to go out of business.

Yes. If capitalism is allowed to exist then you have to get the best from it that you can. It should be legal to pay people a penny an you, but you aren't going to get the attitude and commitment - or frankly anyone at all - to do it. So when Sainsbury's wants people on £5 per hour, Tesco raises the stakes and offers pay at £6 per hour because they want people with a better attitude etc and what to be seen as a better company. Etc etc etc.

The minimum/living wage thing is sort of Communism lite, it doesn't really have a place in a free market economy. The alternative is that the living wage is what you pay people and you can pay them no less OR more. But then you're talking an entirely different economical model.
 
Yes. If capitalism is allowed to exist then you have to get the best from it that you can. It should be legal to pay people a penny an you, but you aren't going to get the attitude and commitment - or frankly anyone at all - to do it. So when Sainsbury's wants people on £5 per hour, Tesco raises the stakes and offers pay at £6 per hour because they want people with a better attitude etc and what to be seen as a better company. Etc etc etc.

Just doesn't work that way. If it did, by definition of your statement, we wouldn't need a minimum wage in the first place.

The minimum/living wage thing is sort of Communism lite, it doesn't really have a place in a free market economy.

Nonsense. Utter garbage. Sorry Tom, but we live in the 21st Century now, and what you're referring to is the utter misnomer that there's resource problems.

This is about ensuring people have enough money to live on without being forced into poverty whilst others hide billions and billions and billions away from the rest of the economy.

I believe in bettering oneself, constant improvement, striving for achievement etc so I am not a standard socialist. Not remotely. But to suggest that paying people enough to LIVE ON is some kind of communism in this day and age is frankly astonishing.

Tom, take a step back mate, see the wider global economical picture and stare into the lives of those who are suffering whilst big companies are taking billions in profits, then come back and tell me re-balancing that issue from the extremes it's now at, to a more manageable level is communism lite.

It's nothing of the sort.

Oh, and the free market is the biggest load of crap on the economy, it's nothing like a "free market", a few big businesses and institutions have an absolute stranglehold on global economies. That's not remotely a "free market economy". It's a load of moldy crud everyone's fed to keep a status quo.

Way too much power in the hands of WAY WAY WAY too few, who feed this crap out into society as a whole and it swallows it, you're playing their game, that's the reality but let's not pretend all that guff you mentioned is true. It's not. Plenty of evidence to support that on a monumental global scale.
 
Tom is right to some extent though. I know from personal experience when we have advertised for people that we just cannot get them. We may get 50-100 applications through, shortlist 20 and have 1 turn up, or none on some occasions. Why? Because the current benefits system requires that claimants prove they are "trying to get work". This means sending in copies of applications to jobs, or offers of interviews, then mearly saying "oh, I didnt get the job" so they keep their benefits coming in.

But, on the same hand, if someone can earn £250 a week doing a job 9-5 Mon to Fri or £250 for sitting on their backside doing nothing, the only thing that is preventing that person from not doing so is their own self respect.

As for the fruit debate in the EU, that was merely an example, but the main problem people have with the EU is that you have a bunch of people over in Brussels making rules which effect us, or any other EU country for that matter.

Just scanning quickly over your comments as well Blaze, your note about N Korea is just silly, lots of countries have "Sensible" approaches to immigration, nothing wrong with that. We shouldn't have an open door policy. Immigration has so many effects on a country and its economy, good and bad, there should at least be some control over this. As for the NHS, yes government is pulling it apart, as its doing for every public service, BUT, when the NHS was set up, there wasn't the population we have now and it was affordable at the time.

The answer to all of this? My own view is that the wealthy countries of the world should be doing more to make the countries where these people are desperate to leave better, so they feel they don't have to leave in the first place. Yeah it would cost trillions and would require input from every developed country - it will never happen, but if the lives of these people were improved where they live, then they would have no reason to leave.
 
The answer to all of this? My own view is that the wealthy countries of the world should be doing more to make the countries where these people are desperate to leave better, so they feel they don't have to leave in the first place. Yeah it would cost trillions and would require input from every developed country - it will never happen, but if the lives of these people were improved where they live, then they would have no reason to leave.

Not an answer.

Main issue is coming for the healthcare/benefits etc or opportunities, but surely the success of a country is measured on how it cares for it's "residents" as it were.

So for that, let's see what do we need?

Well, healthcare - that's a rather lucrative business. So that would need the countries involved that you mention to support that. Ahh that would increase the requirement for food and resources in those countries. That would result in spiraling costs fo everything including oil, which would in turn put pressure on governments in their own countries, within which those same companies reside whom would need to be onside to make anything of that nature happen.

Call me cynical, but to me it's always been glaringly obvious.

Tin hat brigade, or just a little too obvious to ignore?
 
Yes. If capitalism is allowed to exist then you have to get the best from it that you can. It should be legal to pay people a penny an you, but you aren't going to get the attitude and commitment - or frankly anyone at all - to do it. So when Sainsbury's wants people on £5 per hour, Tesco raises the stakes and offers pay at £6 per hour because they want people with a better attitude etc and what to be seen as a better company. Etc etc etc.

The minimum/living wage thing is sort of Communism lite, it doesn't really have a place in a free market economy. The alternative is that the living wage is what you pay people and you can pay them no less OR more. But then you're talking an entirely different economical model.
Sorry Mr Friedman, but that's not how real life works. Companies want decent staff, but they also want profit. They'll pay as little as they can get away with. Most minimum wage jobs do so begrudgingly, and would pay less if they could. Hence 0 hour contracts. I don't think Tesco is a better company because they pay a little more than Asda an hour, and I wouldn't care for them any more than I do my current employer. I turn up, do the job and go home, if they want me to care about them they should pay me a lot more than £6.89 an hour on a 24 hour contract with an extra unofficial day because no one else is desperate enough to work it.

'Communism lite' is a weird way to view £6.50 an hour. Communism being a political system that does not use currency. There's nothing in socialism/communism/Marxism/whatever you call any attempt at regulating the market that says people can't be paid more than others. What the minimum wage is, is a safety net to stop people being too poor, and with the amount of people in work needing benefits, it's clearly not enough. How can someone start a business with no capital? How can someone on £2 an hour spend on anything but the very basics? The economy requires money to circulate, people need some surplus after unavoidable living costs. Got to spend money to make money, can't spend money if you don't have it (the recession of course, caused in no small part by banks which couldn't afford it making loans to people who couldn't repay). If I'm living on pennies, I'm hardly going to be able to do anything with my life and research backs this up, that being poor causes so much stress on people that their brains can't run as well as they could if they were financially secure and didn't have to commit so much worry and brain power over where their next meal is coming from.
 
Top