Heartland

eotunun wrote:Don´t ya bash him fer being proud on living in the birthplashe of the christmash card.. :lol.

I can hear Sean Connery on SNL in my head, now - "I'll take 'The Rapishts' for $200, Alexsh!"

James Blast wrote: Exactly Don, my initial point was that there now was a BNP Jock Division. I may be ill informed and naive, but I never expected to see them creep north of the Munz 'n' Tattie line.
I honestly thought us Heiders had a lot more sense than that. I predict an extremely low poll count for them. I think my fellowr MacHeartlanders (and the majority of the populace) will prove me richt, oan this wan.

Aye, unfortunately, they're even creeping about up in the North East.
I also like to think the bastards will lose their deposit wherever they stand north o' that line you mention.

Lang may they Burn!

James Blast wrote:Lang may they Burn!

Fair point, but wouldn't you want to see the back of them quicker than that?
In fact, let's round them all up & feed them to lions & tigers & sharks etc.

James Blast wrote:

Erudite wrote:This is of course the downside to free speech.

Still, talking doesn't necessarily mean someone is listening. Hopefully.

Exactly Don, my initial point was that there now was a BNP Jock Division. I may be ill informed and naive, but I never expected to see them creep north of the Munz 'n' Tattie line.
I honestly thought us Heiders had a lot more sense than that. I predict an extremely low poll count for them. I think my fellowr MacHeartlanders (and the majority of the populace) will prove me richt, oan this wan.

They've been around a few years now, Jimbo - http://www.myheartland.co.uk/viewtopic. ... ght=#25248
I even met the brother of the BNP candidate for Glasgow at a xmas party last year and they're both Rangers Fan's

lazarus corporation wrote:The unnervingly sick thing is that support for the BNP/NF dropped while Thatcher was in power, and most commentators believe that this is because the type of fuckwits who vote BNP voted for Thatcher because her policies were so similar to those of the BNP.

I'm no fan of Blair's government, but I did expect BNP support to rise because of what the far-right regard as a left-wing government being in power (yes, I know it isn't a left-wing government, but the nutters on the far-right think it is).

Cameron's shifting of the public perception of the Tories from far-right to centre-right (all that touchy-feely green stuff he's spouting at the insistence of his advisors, as opposed to brutal monetarism and that "Save the Pound" nationalistic s**t that they've campaigned on from Thatcher to Duncan-Smith) has meant that the far-right racist/nationalist tories are feeling betrayed by the Tories and have shifted their allegiances to the BNP, further increasing the BNP's share of the vote.

Wankers, the lot of them.

I don't think Thatcher ever supported compulsory repatriation, if so, she never acted on it. She effectively ended immigration from the Commonwealth, and that was enough to calm those who saw the areas they lived in changing in ways they didn't like. I think you could safely say the majority of the public would support immigration curtailed, but wouldnt support repatriation, voluntary, or otherwise.

The BNP are hardly likely to attract Tory members, as their policies include nationalisation, workers co-operatives, and protectionist trade measures. In other words, Socialism.They are taking voters from the Labour Party, not Tory, and are getting strong in Labour areas, not Tory. In fact, I believe they're campaigning under the title of "The Labour Party your dad voted for" in some areas.

Their support is rising because we now have a lot of new workers from Eastern Europe, whom the Government cannot prevent from coming here under EU freedom of movement laws. And when I say a lot, it is so large a number that the governments of these other countries are themselves expressing concern at the number of emigrants.The unskilled/semiskilled class of this country now have to compete for fewer jobs at lower wages, not to mention the strain on housing, and local amenities. They would like to know why they should have to do this in their own country, and quite frankly, unless you've got a good answer, you can't wag your finger and call them names because they have the temerity to vote for a rather unattractive party.
I admit they are angry at the wrong people, and should focus their anger on Government policy, or the employers who hire these people at cheap wages rather than the migrants themselves, but untill a political party comes up with an answer to this, I cant pretend to be surprised people are getting angry, or blame them for doing so.

And no, I don't vote BNP. I have an Estonian girlfriend, and an openly gay boyfriend. I dont think any of us three would fare too well under them!

DeWinter wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:The unnervingly sick thing is that support for the BNP/NF dropped while Thatcher was in power, and most commentators believe that this is because the type of fuckwits who vote BNP voted for Thatcher because her policies were so similar to those of the BNP.

I'm no fan of Blair's government, but I did expect BNP support to rise because of what the far-right regard as a left-wing government being in power (yes, I know it isn't a left-wing government, but the nutters on the far-right think it is).

Cameron's shifting of the public perception of the Tories from far-right to centre-right (all that touchy-feely green stuff he's spouting at the insistence of his advisors, as opposed to brutal monetarism and that "Save the Pound" nationalistic s**t that they've campaigned on from Thatcher to Duncan-Smith) has meant that the far-right racist/nationalist tories are feeling betrayed by the Tories and have shifted their allegiances to the BNP, further increasing the BNP's share of the vote.

Wankers, the lot of them.

I don't think Thatcher ever supported compulsory repatriation, if so, she never acted on it. She effectively ended immigration from the Commonwealth, and that was enough to calm those who saw the areas they lived in changing in ways they didn't like. I think you could safely say the majority of the public would support immigration curtailed, but wouldnt support repatriation, voluntary, or otherwise.

The BNP are hardly likely to attract Tory members, as their policies include nationalisation, workers co-operatives, and protectionist trade measures. In other words, Socialism.They are taking voters from the Labour Party, not Tory, and are getting strong in Labour areas, not Tory. In fact, I believe they're campaigning under the title of "The Labour Party your dad voted for" in some areas.

Their support is rising because we now have a lot of new workers from Eastern Europe, whom the Government cannot prevent from coming here under EU freedom of movement laws. And when I say a lot, it is so large a number that the governments of these other countries are themselves expressing concern at the number of emigrants.The unskilled/semiskilled class of this country now have to compete for fewer jobs at lower wages, not to mention the strain on housing, and local amenities. They would like to know why they should have to do this in their own country, and quite frankly, unless you've got a good answer, you can't wag your finger and call them names because they have the temerity to vote for a rather unattractive party.
I admit they are angry at the wrong people, and should focus their anger on Government policy, or the employers who hire these people at cheap wages rather than the migrants themselves, but untill a political party comes up with an answer to this, I cant pretend to be surprised people are getting angry, or blame them for doing so.

And no, I don't vote BNP. I have an Estonian girlfriend, and an openly gay boyfriend. I dont think any of us three would fare too well under them!

The BNP supporters supported Thatcher in the 80s because she was a fervent nationalist - the BNP, as you point out, feed off xenophobia and fear of 'the other', whether it's blacks, gays, EU immigrants or whoever else it is politic for them to alienate, exclude and blame. Thatcher might not have mirrored their economic policies line by line, but she talked their language of "us" and "them", and she frequently wrapped her policies (metaphorically) in a union flag to sell them to the electorate.

The Tories used racist language in the constituencies - one Tory campaign in Birmingham many years back used the slogan "if you want a [whoops, i did a racism] for a neighbour, vote Labour". While phrases like that weren't used by Thatcher in televised events, racism was (and I believe still is) endemic within the Tory party.

I'm very glad we've got a lot of Eastern European immigrants working here at the moment (there's quite a few here in Brighton, with shops starting to open specially to sell Polish food - which is good because it's creating new jobs). Even better are the reports saying that around 90% of them are working.

With an increasingly large population of British pensioners putting a strain on housing and local amenities that are paid for by a decreasing population of British workers, it's absolutely fantastic that we've got a wave of Eastern European immigrants who are working (and therefore paying taxes which pay for housing and amenities for British pensioners) otherwise the old would probably end up even worse off than they are now.

Various surveys amongst this recent wave of workers have shown that the vast majority want to return to their native countries after they've earnt some cash - which is even better because they're supporting British pensions, but won't be putting a strain on our pensions system when they get older (or indeed on the NHS).

The problem we have at the moment is that we simply don't have enough people of working age to do all the jobs that need doing (or who are unwilling to do all the jobs that need doing) and we have a population that is (because of advances in medicine and a thankfully lower population growth) increasingly dominated by pensioners who take many resources from the country (pensions, NHS) without contributing anything. Don't get me wrong - I respect the fact that pensioners have already done all their contributing in the past and deserve to have a peaceful retirement. But it's a cash-flow problem and it's the basis of the "pension crisis" that has been in the newspapers for the past few years.

If you want the pensioners of your country to have a secure and peaceful retirement then you need a larger number of working people to pay for them. The choice is simple - welcome immigrant workers or watch granny starve.

lazarus corporation wrote:...The problem we have at the moment is that we simply don't have enough people of working age to do all the jobs that need doing (or who are unwilling to do all the jobs that need doing...

REAAAAALLLY. I'll do 'em! So do you think your government would provide me with a work visa, then?

Right.

SINsister wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:...The problem we have at the moment is that we simply don't have enough people of working age to do all the jobs that need doing (or who are unwilling to do all the jobs that need doing...

REAAAAALLLY. I'll do 'em! So do you think your government would provide me with a work visa, then?

Right.

Yes, we have a stupid situation where we're desperately in need of workers, but refuse to let any into the country!

But because of various xenophobic campaigns by the media, the government keep making it harder and harder for foreigners to come here to work. Because of EU regulations about freedom of movement we can thankfully get at least some workers from Europe. I really think we should allow workers from the US as well.

lazarus corporation wrote:Yes, we have a stupid situation where we're desperately in need of workers, but refuse to let any into the country!

But because of various xenophobic campaigns by the media, the government keep making it harder and harder for foreigners to come here to work. Because of EU regulations about freedom of movement we can thankfully get at least some workers from Europe. I really think we should allow workers from the US as well.

If my English dad were my biological father, we wouldn't need to have this discussion. One of my brothers holds both British and American passports. It's not fair.

nick the stripper wrote:

Andie wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:Wankers, the lot of them.

Indeed

*goes and stands on his Anarchist soapbox*

Anarcho-Communism is the purest form of democracy. And although I'm an anarchist at heart, I have to say allowing these people to vote is what gets us into these problems in the first place.

so...whats the answer?...for that matter what was the question again?

Andie wrote:what was the question again?

whether to get pished and destroy, or just get pished or just destroy

James Blast wrote:

Andie wrote:what was the question again?

whether to get pished and destroy, or just get pished or just destroy

ah...therefore the answer is...Sex Pistols

lazarus corporation wrote:[
Yes, we have a stupid situation where we're desperately in need of workers, but refuse to let any into the country!

But because of various xenophobic campaigns by the media, the government keep making it harder and harder for foreigners to come here to work. Because of EU regulations about freedom of movement we can thankfully get at least some workers from Europe. I really think we should allow workers from the US as well.

Mmm. Well, we do currently have immigration at a record high, I believe, so saying that we don't let anyone in is a bit iffy. In fact, I believe our fellow Western Europeans have restrictions in place on the new members to prevent them entering their countries and working? I saw some charming posters up in France warning about Polish plumbers, that wouldn't have lasted five seconds before a CRE enquiry in Britain.
As for workers from the US, quid pro quo. Make it easy for us to work, or hell, even visit, and we'll reciprocate, I'm sure.

DeWinter wrote:As for workers from the US, quid pro quo. Make it easy for us to work, or hell, even visit, and we'll reciprocate, I'm sure.

I'm not the country I happen to live in, thanks. As a matter of fact, I'm trying to get the hell out.

Feckin' Yanks! they're everywhere, the baisturts!

lazarus corporation wrote: The BNP supporters supported Thatcher in the 80s because she was a fervent nationalist - the BNP, as you point out, feed off xenophobia and fear of 'the other', whether it's blacks, gays, EU immigrants or whoever else it is politic for them to alienate, exclude and blame. Thatcher might not have mirrored their economic policies line by line, but she talked their language of "us" and "them", and she frequently wrapped her policies (metaphorically) in a union flag to sell them to the electorate.

The Tories used racist language in the constituencies - one Tory campaign in Birmingham many years back used the slogan "if you want a [whoops, i did a racism] for a neighbour, vote Labour". While phrases like that weren't used by Thatcher in televised events, racism was (and I believe still is) endemic within the Tory party.

I'm very glad we've got a lot of Eastern European immigrants working here at the moment (there's quite a few here in Brighton, with shops starting to open specially to sell Polish food - which is good because it's creating new jobs). Even better are the reports saying that around 90% of them are working.

With an increasingly large population of British pensioners putting a strain on housing and local amenities that are paid for by a decreasing population of British workers, it's absolutely fantastic that we've got a wave of Eastern European immigrants who are working (and therefore paying taxes which pay for housing and amenities for British pensioners) otherwise the old would probably end up even worse off than they are now.

Various surveys amongst this recent wave of workers have shown that the vast majority want to return to their native countries after they've earnt some cash - which is even better because they're supporting British pensions, but won't be putting a strain on our pensions system when they get older (or indeed on the NHS).

The problem we have at the moment is that we simply don't have enough people of working age to do all the jobs that need doing (or who are unwilling to do all the jobs that need doing) and we have a population that is (because of advances in medicine and a thankfully lower population growth) increasingly dominated by pensioners who take many resources from the country (pensions, NHS) without contributing anything. Don't get me wrong - I respect the fact that pensioners have already done all their contributing in the past and deserve to have a peaceful retirement. But it's a cash-flow problem and it's the basis of the "pension crisis" that has been in the newspapers for the past few years.

If you want the pensioners of your country to have a secure and peaceful retirement then you need a larger number of working people to pay for them. The choice is simple - welcome immigrant workers or watch granny starve.

All political parties talk of us and them. What do you think Scargill did?
Racism is endemic everywhere. If you think otherwise you're deluded. Its human nature to dislike and distrust whats not like you. I doubt it was anymore embracing in the Labour Party.
I dont know what surveys it is you're reading, but there are plenty that say the contrary. One very recent that claimed one in every seven of the new arrivals don't work. And when these new arrivals who are working become eligible for benefits, I expect we'll see the numbers working go down. Welfare dependency isnt an exclusive British trait, and they'd be foolish to work for less than they can get.
As for the pensions black hole, thats very dodgy economics. I believe the Government estimates their contribution at around 3 billion yearly, over what they take. Well, we contribute, gross, 6 billion to the EU. Leave it, stopping the free movement, and thats the one of the BNP arguements cut off at the legs and double the migrants contribution towards pensions!
I've not only solved the pensions black hole, I've defeated the BNP!! Why aren't I running England, I've more of a right to than Gordon Brown..

James Blast wrote:Feckin' Yanks! they're everywhere, the baisturts!

I ain't no Yank. I'm just a sad, lost girl, who wants a life and needs a f*cking break (and I don't mean my heart or my legs, either)...

SINsister wrote:(and I don't mean my heart or my legs, either)

So that just leaves your arms then.

DeWinter wrote: All political parties talk of us and them. What do you think Scargill did?
Racism is endemic everywhere. If you think otherwise you're deluded. Its human nature to dislike and distrust whats not like you. I doubt it was anymore embracing in the Labour Party.
I dont know what surveys it is you're reading, but there are plenty that say the contrary. One very recent that claimed one in every seven of the new arrivals don't work. And when these new arrivals who are working become eligible for benefits, I expect we'll see the numbers working go down. Welfare dependency isnt an exclusive British trait, and they'd be foolish to work for less than they can get.
As for the pensions black hole, thats very dodgy economics. I believe the Government estimates their contribution at around 3 billion yearly, over what they take. Well, we contribute, gross, 6 billion to the EU. Leave it, stopping the free movement, and thats the one of the BNP arguements cut off at the legs and double the migrants contribution towards pensions!
I've not only solved the pensions black hole, I've defeated the BNP!! Why aren't I running England, I've more of a right to than Gordon Brown..

Yes, all political parties talk of "us" and "them" but Thatcher & the Tories used the same nationalistic disctinctions that the BNP used.

Yes, Racism is endemic everywhere, but I'd argue that it more blatant and was considered more acceptable in the Tories in the 1980s than, for example, in the Labour Party of the 1980s.

No, sorry you're wrong - every recentsurvey has shown that the vast majority of recent Eastern European immigrants is working. I don't know what surveys you're reading!

I don't know about you but I'm not prepared to support stopping the free movement of people in the EU purely to appease the BNP and cut off one of their arguments!

Well, I could have said Trident, Olympics, foreign wars and peacekeeping duties, any of those kind of things that there seems to be a bottomless pit of money for.
My point was your economic argument for it is a bit of a crock. So you need another reason to justify it in the eyes of those voting BNP. They also arent likely to be too concerned about free movement within the EU either, for that matter.

You can find surveys for either side, but as the Government admits it doesn't have a clue how many people actually are here, working out things like this is impossible, as no survey can give an accurate picture.

Oh, and you can't be seriously asserting that those bastions of Labour support the Working Men's Clubs werent quite famous for some of their witty raconteurs racial jokes??

DeWinter wrote:My point was your economic argument for it is a bit of a crock.

No, it's simple maths:
1. More British people of pensionable age means more money coming out of the "pot" to them (unless you decrease pensions).
2. Less British people of working age means less money going into the pot in the form of taxes (unless you increase taxes).
3. More Polish workers coming to the UK to work mean more taxes paid into the pot (overcoming that shortfall).

Trident, Olympics, foreign wars and peacekeeping duties are indeed drains on that central pot of money, but a decreasing number of British people of working age paying taxes and an increase in Polish workers coming to the UK and paying taxes are comparable because they're both concerned with the workforce (which Trident, Olympics, foreign wars and peacekeeping duties have nothing to do with).

DeWinter wrote:Oh, and you can't be seriously asserting that those bastions of Labour support the Working Men's Clubs werent quite famous for some of their witty raconteurs racial jokes??

No, I didn't assert that. What I said was
"Yes, Racism is endemic everywhere, but I'd argue that it more blatant and was considered more acceptable in the Tories in the 1980s than, for example, in the Labour Party of the 1980s. "

You need to understand the difference between a party and their 'bastions of support':

Extrapolating the Labour Party's beliefs out to the bastions of their support (Working Men's Clubs) is like saying that the Conservative Party supported Paedophilia because their bastion of support, the Conservative Student Association, voted to legalise paedophilia (before Tebbit axed them). I may hate the Tories with a vengeance, but even I couldn't seriously say their party supported paedophilia.

Alright, I'll repeat it:
£3 billion, in excess of what they take, according to the Home Office, and for the sake of argument, we'll take their word for it. So the country, overall, has an extra £3 billion that it wouldn't have.
Unfortunately, in terms of government spending, £3 billion is peanuts.
If every penny of it went straight into the pension pot every year, it wouldnt replace the £5 billion yearly that Gordon has grabbed from it for the past decade.
So, people are no better off pension wise(as thats your arguement) for the past ten years immigration, are they? For all it's worth on that account, it may as well never have happened.
Now, you could then say "It's not their fault the UK's economy has been badly handled" and there I agree.
But it's not me you have to convince. I can see the benefits and drawbacks. But the people the BNP will target aren't those reaping the benefits of it. They get the downside, the overcrowding, the high density living, wage depression,the lack of housing,a bed in an NHS ward or being seen in an A&E unit. As for free movement of goods, people and services, they are unlikely to be business owners, employers,or be able to afford property abroad.It may well be true that immigration is good for the UK economy overall, but for these people..it isn't. Do you seriously expect them to like it, and are you surprised they're voting against it ?

I think the Working Mens Clubs could reasonably be considered representative of Labour. They were certainly connected very strongly to the trade unions which practically ran the Labour Party during the seventies and eighties. I doubt very much their opinions on most things differed that much.