Because in the end, that's what's been at the heart of all of this nonsense - the really histrionic, weepy section of the UK electorate demanding respect and affection in a great red-faced strop, stamping their little feet, shouting nursery cursewords and flinging their toys across the room.
I couldn't give a damn who wins the European elections and couldn't care less whether people are fleeing the main parties to join great clattering cavalcades of wowsers, jingoes and dimwits. If people want to be represented by a bunch of Jim Henson puppets who are plainly thicker than shitty jam, well frankly, fuck 'em - they deserve what they get.
So, basically, we have a ramshackle coalition of the grumpy. The biggest single group in it would like to vent intestinal gas, and wants its NHS and its BBC and its institutions in general. The second-biggest group either wants to sell all of those, or doesn’t care as long as they get to be an MEP. The smallest group is either obsessed by the EU, or else by Alan Clark diary fantasies, and has the most seniority in the party’s organisation, but also the least professionalism. UKIP is very different, in this sense, to something like the FN, which has a strong ideological and hierarchical armature under the plaster curves of Marianne.
En passant de 6,34 % à plus de 25 % entre 2009 et et 2014, avec une abstention assez similaire entre les deux scrutin (56,9 %, contre 59,37 % il y a cinq ans), le Front national réalise sans conteste un score record. Il est, pour la première fois de son histoire vieille de 30 ans, en tête d'une élection nationale [...]
Translation: Going from 6.34% [of the vote] to more than 25% [in the EU elections of] 2009 and 2014, with similar abstention rates between the two elections (56.9% this year versus 59.37% five years ago), the Front National easily made record results. For the first time in its 30-year history, it leads a national election [...]
Vote 2014 Europe: Great Britain
Party Votes Change MEPs Change
UKIP 27.50 +10.99 23 +10
Labour 25.40 +9.67 18 +7
Con 23.94 -3.80 18 -7
Green 7.87 -0.75 3 +1
LibDem 6.87 -6.88 1 -9
Plaid 0.71 -0.13 1 0
SNP 2.44 +0.34 0 0
BNP 1.14 -5.10 0 -2
kariebookish: "The rise of DPP was a big part of my decision to leave Denmark - the casual racism, pervasive xenophobia and parochial nationalism was hard to stomach on a daily basis. "
Apocryphon: "Why are leftist parties so bad at being populist. Why is the side that is ostensibly about empowering the people so out of touch with them."
2013's rise in net migration, up 35,000 on the previous year to reach 212,000, is not surprising - it's no change whatsoever from the figures for the previous quarter.
Although it is certainly more than last year, the Office for National Statistics does not see it as a "statistically significant rise". In other words, this means that the changes are not pronounced enough to "reflect real changes in migration patterns"
Recent immigrants – those who arrived after 1999 – have provided a consistently positive and astonishingly strong contribution to the UK’s fiscal health. Between 2001 and 2011, immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA – the EU plus three small neighbours) contributed 34 per cent more than they took out, with a net contribution of about £22.1 billion.
At the same time, recent immigrants from non-EEA countries made a net contribution of £2.9 billion, thus paying into the system about 2 per cent more than they took out. Overall, immigration to the UK between 2001 and 2011 therefore provided a positive net contribution of about £25 billion. And don’t forget that this occurred over a period in which the UK had run an overall budget deficit.
Around 30 per cent of doctors and 40 per cent of nurses in today’s NHS were born outside the UK. [snip] So the NHS, suggests Stephanie Snow, revered as a “symbol of national life” in Britain, has in fact been one of the great institutions of immigration and integration too. ‘International Health Service’ might be a more appropriate name. And the politicians have always had to steer a difficult line – between addressing public angst about immigrants taking ‘British jobs’ and overburdening ‘British services’ while knowing that the most extensive and valued of those services, the NHS, would have struggled without the work of those who have come from abroad.
Duncan Smith and May cite "evidence from the Migration Advisory Committee" in their article to suggest that immigration negatively affects British workers in the Labour market.
However a report from Jonathan Wadsworth, member of the Migration Advisory Committee, shows that "there is little evidence of overall adverse effects of immigration on wages and employment for people born in the UK."
He adds that it is "hard to find evidence of much displacement of UK workers or lower wages... they certainly do not receive preferential access to housing."
It may make political sense for ministers to blame rising unemployment on immigration from the EU, however the economic evidence does not necessarily back that up.
« Older Wojciech Jarzelski, Poland's last Communist leader... | We’re all familiar with the st... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt