UKIP MP number 2 coming up.

[Triggaaar]

Good. Much safer now. What it's actually achieved is everyone doing 30 or under, instead of 30 limits and people doing anything up to 40. Also seems to keep traffic flowing better in my experience as you're not all rushing to the next junction.

So how many lives are being saved each year?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Was that a serious post, or is my internal humour-meter on the blink?

Chill , it won't happen until the monorail is built

 

[strings]

One aspect of running the economy is to stop bleeding money on people coming into the country who do not benefit our economy. Would you agree? Yes or no?

I absolutely agree, which is why we need more immigrants from within the EU. Studies have shown that they pay more in tax than they claim in benefits, hence adding to the economy.

Much better than those workshy Brits.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

I lived in Brighton almost all my life. Now as a visitor,

1. I cant park easily and when I do it costs a fortune.
2. One way systems that have screwed up the flow of traffic across town.
3. Bus lanes and cycle lanes designed to alienate the private car driver
4. 20mph limits all over town making one afraid to get out of second gear.

So Green it will stop visitors and shoppers from coming to Brighton and the town centre will die.

Re 1 there are 1000's of spaces in Churchill Sq at £6 for 5 hours 50 mins....cheap as chips and as its fullish when I leave on weekdays the town is benefitting from people spending more money than you sound like you are comfortable with...

 

[Triggaaar]

Most potential UKIP voters know nothing about the best way to run the economy. They are attracted to UKIP because they don't like foreigners.

I don't agree with that. I hate racism and can be over PC at times, but I'm a potential UKIP voter because I want our country to consider leaving the EU. And if you think the average voter of other parties know more about running the economy then you're deluded.

 

[The Large One]

One aspect of running the economy is to stop bleeding money on people coming into the country who do not benefit our economy. Would you agree? Yes or no?

The majority of immigrants coming into the country do benefit the economy - to the tune of £25bn since 1999.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467

The pro rata amount of immigrants who do not benefit the economy, compared to the indigenous population, is small.

So the short answer is 'yes', but that question should be asked of everyone, not just immigrants, for it to have any meaning.

 

[sten_super]

True, we could do with a park-and-ride scheme worthy of the name - and no-one has come up with a satisfactory solution in 30 years.

Excuse the tangent, but you'll find that even if they designed and implemented a great one they wouldn't resist the urge to tamper with it. In Cambridge, a rapidly-expanding city, they've just decided in their wisdom that free parking, paid for by the bus trips from the P&R sites, isn't enough because people are parking there and using their own sustainable transport, e.g. bike or walking, rather than paying. Which is presumably precisely the kind of behaviour that they should be encouraging. So now you have to pay to park and for the bus.

One aspect of running the economy is to stop bleeding money on people coming into the country who do not benefit our economy. Would you agree? Yes or no?

It's nowhere near that straightforward though, is it? Because on that basis we should sterilise those dependent on benefits, to stop their children coming into the country and not benefiting the economy.

 

[Grombleton]

I don't agree with that. I hate racism and can be over PC at times, but I'm a potential UKIP voter because I want our country to consider leaving the EU. And if you think the average voter of other parties know more about running the economy then you're deluded.

I get the impression that LB's assessment wasn't aimed at people like you, that may have done some research and thought about things - more about the "there's too many bloody foreigners here....Can't even walk down the street and see a BRITISH shop" Y'know, the morons.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It's nowhere near that straightforward though, is it? Because on that basis we should sterilise those dependent on benefits, to stop their children coming into the country and not benefiting the economy.

Have you thought of getting a job with the UKIP policy thinktank ?

 

[Bold Seagull]

absolutely this
I can remember sitting on a bus (5A) at or near the Preston Circus for several hours in traffic jams in the 60's things in Brighton will never get any better and I might say Eastbourne is getting just like that too

It could do. Check out Utrecht (4th largest Dutch city) where over 30% of journeys in the city are made by bicycle. The infrastructure is safe for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes. No helmets because there are so few accidents. Look how easy the traffic is moving in the centre of a city at rush hour! Amazing, healthy and cheap too. If you had this level of safety and ease of getting about for the residents and those working and travelling in Brighton, imagine how easy it is for those where a car or van is essential to get around. Just seems such a win win. Really do hope our attitudes to cycling change. This has to be a way forward rather than the battle and conflict we're experiencing on the roads at the moment?

 

[pasty]

The idea is to issue work permits so those who make a contribution to society are welcome and at the same time weed out those who simply arrive with the intention of living off the state for the rest off their lives.

There should (in theory) be a simple solution to stopping immigrants living of the UK state. I have no idea if it would be contrary to EU laws, or even legal, but surely can't we simply say that to claim UK benefits, you have to hold, or at least qualify to hold, a UK passport?

 

[Bold Seagull]

So how many lives are being saved each year?

Go find out yourself!

 

[Triggaaar]

Well we should either:
a) turn a blind eye to directives WE don't like, or

I can't see how that's a workable solution.

b) withhold money until ignored directives are met

And who has the final say on whether those directives are met, us? I assume that's an unworkable solution too.

There is a reason why economists who are in favour of us remaining in the EU outnumber those who don't by about 300 to 1.

I didn't know that - do you have a source?

personally I disregard anyone who whinges about the lack of accountability of the EU law makers but are happy enough for us to keep a sponging unaccountable Royal family as head of state - as it smacks of utter hypocrisy.

The argument for keeping the royal family is that the cost is less than the benefit to us in tourism etc. There's no similar argument for the EU law makers.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I don't agree with that. I hate racism and can be over PC at times, but I'm a potential UKIP voter because I want our country to consider leaving the EU. And if you think the average voter of other parties know more about running the economy then you're deluded.

Tories are offering a referendum. So there must be another reason you'd vote UKIP given the greatest chance of leaving the EU will be a vote for the Conservatives.

 

[piersa]

The majority of immigrants coming into the country do benefit the economy - to the tune of £25bn since 1999.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467

The pro rata amount of immigrants who do not benefit the economy, compared to the indigenous population, is small.

So the short answer is 'yes', but that question should be asked of everyone, not just immigrants, for it to have any meaning.

Disagree, the workshy indigenous population is our problem. We have to deal with them the best way we can. Let the majority of foreigners in if they are a net benefit financially. Caveats obviously apply, such as criminal records etc. The foreigners who want to come here who do not benefit the economy quite simply should not be allowed in.

 

[kip]

Most potential UKIP voters know nothing about the best way to run the economy. They are attracted to UKIP because they don't like foreigners.

I think most voters full stop, know nothing about the best way to run the economy. And I don't think it's because people don't like foreigners but because they feel threatened by mass uncontrolled immigration.

 

[Simster]

I can't see how that's a workable solution.

It's perfectly workable. The French do it. No government help allowed in car manufacturing? We closed down British Leyland, the French just subsidised the firms making car part components. Guess which country still has a car manufacturing industry 30 years later.

And who has the final say on whether those directives are met, us? I assume that's an unworkable solution too.

Your assumption is wrong. I've just highlighted an example where British car manufacturers were at a disadvantage to their French competitors. We could have easily just refused while this was going on, or just continued to ignore the directives ourselves.

I didn't know that - do you have a source?

No. But they are in a massive minority. I know of ONE EU sceptical economist who writes for the Telegraph, Roger Bootle. Do you know of any others?

The argument for keeping the royal family is that the cost is less than the benefit to us in tourism etc. There's no similar argument for the EU law makers.

There are plenty of arguments made for keeping the Royal family - most of them as stupid as this one. There is nothing that proves what you say, as if British democracy should be for sale to a handful of American tourists wanting to buy a few Prince William mugs anyway.

 

[halbpro]

I think most voters full stop, know nothing about the best way to run the economy. And I don't think it's because people don't like foreigners but because they feel threatened by mass uncontrolled immigration.

Most economists don't know the best way to run the economy, hence the number of competing economic theories.

 

[Triggaaar]

I get the impression that LB's assessment wasn't aimed at people like you, that may have done some research and thought about things

lol - you flatter me

more about the "there's too many bloody foreigners here....Can't even walk down the street and see a BRITISH shop" Y'know, the morons.

If you're a racist member of the public, who do you vote for - there's a good chance you'll vote UKIP.
Does that make UKIP a racist party - no.
If you're a racist politician, which party should you join - again, there's a fair chance you'll join UKIP (although obviously all parties have racist members).
Does that make UKIP a racist party - well, a bit. It depends how many of the party members are racist and how much they influence the policies.

I feel the need for a country-wide debate on whether we should be in the EU or not, as Scotland did with the independence vote. I really just want what's best for our economy.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Most potential UKIP voters know nothing about the best way to run the economy. They are attracted to UKIP because they don't like foreigners.

I thought better of you Lord B. Firstly supporting controlled immigration doesn't mean someone 'doesn't like foreigners', unless of course you're suggesting that the US, Canada, Australia, China, Singapore, South Africa, Russia, most the Caribbean nations and most the South American nations 'don't like foreigners' as they have controlled immigration ?

Many people are attracted to UKIP because they don't like the EU rather than foreigners.