EU corruption "equivalent to the bloc's annual budget"

[Zero Liability]

From what I understand, the sort of people you're referring to, i.e. who are gainfully employed, would qualify for work permits, anyway.

I am not a particularly political person, in fact I find the whole process abhorrent, however if UKIP does force the Tories to re-align back to the right, I would regard its influence as positive; even if it were a single issue party, it'd possess one policy more than any of the other parties that i favoured.

As to the comment that there are no supporters of the sort you mention (that you are aware of) on UKIP's side, their vote is of little use regardless of which party they support, and surely their influence is negligible. E.g. I like Daniel Hannan, one of the Tory MEPs; probably not what you mean by a supporter, but he'll suffice. He has next to no influence over that party. And whilst the likes of Godfrey Bloom or Farage are known for their flare and occasional drama (still pretty tame stuff next to what many in the existing political class contrive to), I believe they have a pretty firm grip of what ails the economy. So I take your point that they're all as terrible as each other, but I am glad that UKIP is there to force the three dinosaurs to re-consider their lethargy.

The biggest issue with any one of them is that they promise one thing and, when in power, deliver something completely different. This is besides all the corruption and graft that attend the political process. It just does not pay to be an informed voter other than to debate these topics. An informed lobbyist is another matter entirely.

[doodab]

From what I understand, the sort of people you're referring to, i.e. who are gainfully employed, would qualify for work permits, anyway.

Exactly, so UKIP will change nothing there.

As to the comment that there are no supporters of the sort you mention (that you are aware of) on UKIP's side, their vote is of little use regardless of which party they support, and surely their influence is negligible. E.g. I like Daniel Hannan, one of the Tory MEPs; probably not what you mean by a supporter, but he'll suffice. He has next to no influence over that party. And whilst the likes of Godfrey Bloom or Farage are known for their flare and occasional drama (still pretty tame stuff next to what many in the existing political class contrive to), I believe they have a pretty firm grip of what ails the economy. So I take your point that they're all as terrible as each other, but I am glad that UKIP is there to force the three dinosaurs to re-consider their lethargy.

The only people who are forced to reconsider anything are the tories, and that's purely because of the long standing divisions within the party over Europe.

As I see it, a change in government has more to do with the failings of the current incumbents than the appeal of the new ones. Thatcher only got in because people had had enough of the unions, Blair only got in because people had had enough of the last generation of Tory sleaze and Cameron only got in because people had had it with Blair / Brown / the Iraq war and the financial meltdown.

The fact the lib dems did so well at the last election is more a sign of the lasting bad taste in the mouth that the previous generation of Tories left behind than any inate appeal IMO, so the idea that UKIP are onto a winner by harking back to those days seems absurd. It's only a minority of died in the wool old school Tory types who are attracted by that and it might steal votes from today's Tories but it won't bother anyone else.

So the question is really have people had enough of Cameron & co yet? If so, we'll see a change, if not I'd expect more of the same.

[Zero Liability]

Nothing would change with regard to labour that would satisfy the requirement to gain work permits, such as IT workers, precisely because they're in gainful employment. The difference would be that, as with Oz/the Kiwis/Canada, you'd need gainful employment before coming here.

Both Labour and the Tories have had a sudden change of tune with regard to immigration, and the Tories are now promising an EU referendum if Cameron is elected, and Labour has been increasingly forced to comment on it, and quite often reveal its very elitist character. Both these issues have been motivated by UKIP's campaigning, I believe. Farage and Bloom (as well as Hannan) also put a lot of focus on the banking sector and have lambasted the bailouts, whereas none of the current parties seem that troubled by anything the banking sector (and the central bank) get up to. Probably because they understand the role it plays in facilitating higher spending than would be possible via direct taxation.

Of course there's Milliband's pointed comments about "breaking up" the banks' supposed oligopoly, which has absolutely nothing to do with why the financial sector became so fragile. As he did last time, he will no doubt apologise and warm up to the bankers, this time post-election.

UKIP really is about the only other competition the main parties face. I do not expect it to win any elections but insofar as it forces the Tories back into the position of "more laissez-faire-than-thou" and thus differentiated them from Labour, it will have played a useful role. I agree that in practice Labour will not really alter its policies one iota as a result of UKIP, in fact it will most likely just continue the status quo and blame any adverse effects on the next party after it.

As for Cameron and Osborne, they've pretty much done things by the book, with rather tepid 'austerity' (mostly cuts in the rate of govt growth) and pseudo-privatisations, as well as instigating a mini-housing boom (at least in London.) Whilst there has been some grumbling about that, they are attempting to deliver what appears to be an 'improving' economy (I don't believe it is but appearances are what matter), but a lot can change by 2015, particularly if the BoE is forced to push up interest rates or withdraw its interventions in the housing market (perhaps purely by market forces diverging from 'forward guidance'.) I'll agree that the Lib-dems were ok on tax, but that isn't saying much.

[KentPhilip]

India isn't in the EU you plum. The influx of Indian IT works is purely the work of the UK government, if we left the EU the problem would probably get worse as more would be needed to replace all the Europeans.

UKIP policy is to reduce immigation from all foreign countries, not just those in Europe. We don't NEED any more indian or other workers, other than for a few specialist skills. The only effect of reducing immigration from India and Europe will be to increase back to market levels the rates of pay of the workers (us) who had been displaced by them.

[BrilloPad]

UKIP policy is to reduce immigation from all foreign countries, not just those in Europe. We don't NEED any more indian or other workers, other than for a few specialist skills. The only effect of reducing immigration from India and Europe will be to increase back to market levels the rates of pay of the workers (us) who had been displaced by them.

Never mind the Indians! What about the fooking frogs! Can we send them all home please?

[doodab]

The only effect of reducing immigration from India and Europe will be to increase back to market levels the rates of pay of the workers (us) who had been displaced by them.

That should stick another £50bn on the cost of the NHS then, never mind the education budget.

[KentPhilip]

That should stick another £50bn on the cost of the NHS then, never mind the education budget.

No, because the cost to the taxpayer of providing NHS care (and other state services) to the immigrants themselves working in the NHS is greater than the uplift in workers' wages that would result from their leaving.

[doodab]

No, because the cost to the taxpayer of providing NHS care (and other state services) to the immigrants themselves working in the NHS is greater than the uplift in workers' wages that would result from their leaving.

Do you know that or just want to believe it? What about when their tax contribution is taken into account?

TBH the bigger problem would be lack of staff, there simply aren't tens of thousands of qualified nurses and doctors sitting around waiting for a job to come up, whatever it pays.

[Mich the Tester]

Do you know that or just want to believe it? What about when their tax contribution is taken into account?

TBH the bigger problem would be lack of staff, there simply aren't tens of thousands of qualified nurses and doctors sitting around waiting for a job to come up, whatever it pays.

UKIP will have an answer for this; they have an answer for everything. I never hear them say 'you know, that's a good question, we need to work something out for that'. That's a reason for me to distrust them; they're too convinced of themselves, a bit like hardline socialists can always give you a manufactured answer about how some problem like the rain dripping into Zeity's workplace is a symbol of the international class struggle.

UKIPPERS, take note; if you want me to take you seriously, start to admit doubt and allow space for alternative ideas instead of this binary in-or-out ideal that reminds me of George W Bush's idea of 'with us or against us' (like maybe joining forces with others to reform the EU, joining the EEA, renegotiating etc). And stop yapping on about the three main parties all being the same; they aren't. Some of their members and some of their MPs agree on some things; that isn't communism, as one of their MEPs recently claimed, it's just that some ideas might seem so eminently sensible that left, right and middle are able to agree on them.

Grow up; take it seriously, accept that you aren't always right, accept that consensus does not equal conspiracy, accept that there are infinite possibilities outside of the simple 'in or out' equation and I might just be able to take you seriously.

[doodab]

some ideas might seem so eminently sensible that left, right and middle are able to agree on them.

That I think is the crux of the matter. Most policy making doesn't benefit from opposing parties spouting opinionated guff and enumerating many different options when only a few very similar ones actually make any sense. What it needs is intelligent data gathering and decision making by people who know what they are doing to get into the details and fine tune the sensible approach that most people agree on. Health & education for example probably shouldn't be run by the government at all, just accountable to it.