David Cameron has vowed there will be no “lurch to the right” by the Conservatives in the wake of the party’s poor performance in the Eastleigh by-election.
But, hang on a minute, UKIP was never on the right; its ideology is deeply rooted in anti-competition, close shop model of the Old Left. Nigel Farage is the new Arthur Scargill without the working class accent. UKIP is as far left a party as you can get.
The New Rights, namely the UKIP and the Conservative “Right Wings” actually have the same mentality of the Old Left – their cries of “protecting British workers job”, “secure our borders” etc, sound just like the Old Left who blockaded the entrance to the factory gate and screaming ” Scabs, Scabs” to those workers who breached the picket line. The Polish, the Slovaks and soon the Romanians and Bulgarians are the new Scabs.
To close our borders so that the workers inside can demand high pay with low skills is just like the failed attempt of our trade unions that ran close shop in the previous decades.
UKIP’s immigration policy, ie, British jobs for British workers is as out of date as the demarcation policy of the trade unions – the idea that such policy would protect jobs had been proven wrong – the British ship building industry was sunk by it. UKIP wants Britain to live in the past while the world is moving forward.
Economy is and always will be the deciding factor for winning the Election.
Conservative’s “right wing” immigration policy, masterminded by Theresa May and Chris Grayling, delivered by the nasty United Kingdom Borders Agency (UKBA), treating the foreign students/businessmen and tourists of the booming economies of the East like criminals, is hurting UK’s economy badly, the immigration policy from the Conservative Right wing is actually making all of us poorer. With the Chinese tour operators and the international cruise operators removing British ports and cities from its itinerary, the small businesses who are the natural core voters of the Tory party, who voted the Tory for its competence in managing the economy, are aghast by the total disregard these Tory “right wing” politicians have for the livelihood of their natural supporters.
We need leaders to take us to the future, not to keep us in the past. Instead of lying and pretending that if we secure our borders, we can protect British jobs, it is time for the Conservative leader to come out to tell the truth – The future belongs to those countries that operate pro-actively an immigration policy to replenish its skills, to help it remain competitive and to enable it to diversify its cultural and genetic make up.
UKBA is now the nasty face of Britain. It is closing our borders to keep our customers out. Theresa May, Chris Grayling and the Tory “Right Wings” are now costing British businesses billions of pounds in lost trade, They are as close minded and anti-competition as the old trade unionists. Their close door policies will wreck Britain’s economy and lead us down the path to reach that of pre-war Germany, with UKBA turning itself into Britain’s own Gestapo.
IS/OB
Filed under: Economy, Government Tagged: | Arthur Scargill, Chris Grayling MP, Nigel Farage, Theresa May MP, UKBA, UKIP
Eh? Have you read their manifesto? I was shocked to find in their 2010 one that they effectively called for privatising the NHS (“Encourage County Health Boards to put out to tender key NHS services ranging from Long Term Care to local hospitals and GP surgeries.”).
Hardly old left.
You really should stop Ben Gummer writing your articles. And this is porky argued tosh. Protecting the living standards of British workers is not, and never should be, the sole preserve of the left.
What makes you think Ben Gummer wrote this article?
Oh, here we go again! Good old IS/OB with more poorly-argued, poorly-researched anti-UKIP drivel.
I really don’t know why Ipswich Spy even prints this nonsense.
OB states: “UKIP is as far left as you can get.” and then offers as evidence, the sole evidence, the following: “UKIP’s immigration policy, ie, British jobs for British workers is as out of date as the demarcation policy of the trade unions”.
I’ve just re-read the UKIP immigration policy – found at http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1499-immigration-ukip-policy – and nowhere in it does it mention “British jobs for British workers”, or even the concept of it. That phrase was, I recall, uttered at a Labour Party Conference by none other than Gordon Brown, who even as he said it knew it was bollocks as the EU would never permit that.
UKIP has never been against immigration per se, it is against uncontrolled immigration. It prefers a points-based system as used in Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand etc. As long as we are in the EU, we can never control our borders, and we can’t pick and choose whom we allow in. We are obliged to accept the dross along with those who will make a positive contribution to our country. I fail to see how a desire to control who comes in and who doesn’t makes anyone racist, far-left, far-right or any other kind of extremist.
In this article, OB constantly makes nonsensical assertions based on a statement. For instance: “To close our borders so that the workers inside can demand high pay with low skills…”
UKIP has, in its policy, said that it would like a 5 year moratorium on immigration. The purpose of this, as a couple of seconds rational thought reveals, is to take stock of the situation, and to formulate a proper immigration policy that is to the benefit of the country, and fair to potential immigrants. It is patent nonsense to suggest that it has anything to do with protecting jobs for the poorly-skilled and poorly-educated masses we have the previous Government to thank for.
OB says: “UKIP wants Britain to live in the past while the world is moving forward.” Really? Where does it say that? When has Nigel Farage ever said such a thing? How can any rational person draw such a conclusion from the evidence?
Another: “The future belongs to those countries that operate pro-actively an immigration policy to replenish its skills, to help it remain competitive and to enable it to diversify its cultural and genetic make up.”
I don’t think anyone would argue with the thrust of that, but I’d like an answer to the following two questions:
Firstly, how do the immigration policies of Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand etc., which are the policies UKIP espouses, preclude that assertion in any way?
Secondly, how does uncontrolled immigration from the EU, with no form of entry criteria required; no qualifications, ability to support oneself, no age-related criteria etc., help us to achieve the noble aims stated above. In supplement I would ask how you believe that the opposite – the staus quo if you like – doesn’t apply.
OB, you need to be a) MUCH better informed before you spout off your drivel, and b) you need to look up the meaning of “non sequitur”, something shown in abundance in everything I’ve ever seen that you have written. Here’s a helpful link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
Not defending the article, or UKIP policy, but isn’t the points based system used in Australia exactly what we have here? At least that was the impression given by Labour when they introduced it (belatedly) in the latter years of the Brown premiership, and it was certainly Tory party policy in 2010.
I haven’t been able to find that out for sure, and in any event, even if it does exist, it can never apply to the EU as long as we are members of it.
If anyone can find the current policy on points-based immigration, a link would be nice. That said, didn’t Cameron recently announce some kind of bypass for India?
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/pointscalculator is the first link I found by typing “points based immigration uk” into Google. Haven’t had a chance to read it properly yet though.
I take your point on the EU and on India. However as a traditional Tory, who believes in freedoms and the market, I’m afraid unlike most of my party I am in favour of immigration. I might even pen a series of essays about the benefits of immigration, as I am sure the anti case will be made eloquently beneath!
For the avoidance of doubt, I, personally, am in favour of immigration; with a caveat. It must be only for those who are of benefit to the country, who bring something in that we want or need, and of whom we, as a nation approve. We rely on our Government to take care of that last part. We have been grievously let down in that regard.
I DO NOT approve of mass uncontrolled immigration by all and sundry, who either actively mean harm to our country, or who merely wish to take advantage of our good nature. I do not approve or agree with the EU policy as it currently stands.
Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I too am a traditional Tory, but unfortunately, the Tory party no longer is, and will never be with Cameron as leader. Consequently, I no longer support the Tory party.
What economic illiteracy the UKIP speaks? “5 year moratorium on immigration, to take stock , to formulate a proper policy?” that is about 10 years. In that 10 years, China’s economy will have grown probably 250%, more than double its current size while UKIP and/or Conservative right wing Britain will shut its door to have a debate about if we should all grow our own vegetables and keep our own pigs.
The world has moved on, shut the door for 5 to 10 years will not shut the jobs in. Jobs have legs, they travel, and these legs are elongated that with a tiny lift, will walk over the highest wall on the borders of Britain.
@taraab. I refer you to my earlier comments about the phrase non sequitur…
If you truly believe what you say, that the lack of a few tens of thousands of immigrants would be sufficient to sink the entire country forever, I despair. Further, why would jobs fly simply because we stopped allowing hundred of thousands of low grade Euro-immigrants in? Please… Use your brain…
If one million Chinese Tourists come to Britain a year, our unemployment rate will go down to 0% in just 3 years.
Each Chinese tourist spends about £1500 in Britain, 10 of them is a full time UK graduate job, 1 million of them is 100,000 direct jobs, which can create 300,000 to 500,000 indirect jobs, a year. Then there will the investments of upgrading the hotels, building new hotels, new shopping malls, tour bus buildings etc, etc, these are the new jobs to create the infrastructure of tourist services
@taraab. Without wishing to disagree with your point, I refer you to my earlier comments about the phrase non sequitur… Again.
Tourism is not immigration. You have raised a total red herring. Now, the simple fact is that our borders are so porous, and our procedures so broken, that the only way they can even try to keep things under control, is by making it difficult for non-EU people to come here, even as tourists (except, apparently, Indians).
It is madness, but it is typical of our Governments for years. They try – and often fail – to fix symptoms, but never address the real problem.
I agree with you, as it happens.