The name, and indeed the concept, of marriage is not, and never will be, the property of the church.

Oh, and, no religious institution would be compelled to perform marriage ceremonies for gay people. I think this is what Minty was referring to when she mentioned UKIP voters being incapable of rational thought.

What you call "xenophobes" are the great majority of the British public. Too much immigration is very high on the agenda of most people I've ever spoken too. The traditional working class and traditional middle class are opposed to it. Go to any discussion with politicians and you see that. Why can't people of a certain minority, mentaliity just accept that rather than trying to villify people?

Labour introduced that in 2007/8. If you think it isn't controlled ask some large companies about recruiting skilled staff, and don't believe the crap in the papers

Because vilifying immigrants is what its all about instead?

Unfortunately, a lot of people who have a "problem" with immigration don't really understand it, and for example would allow say Luis Suarez (an immigrant) to come here without complaining, because he plays football, yet moan about say A N Other from India who is a highly skilled computer professional, when he may be filling a post that keeps perhaps hundreds of UK citizens in work. That may be an extreme example, but thats what it comes down to, a one fits all rejection of foreigners.

Kylie Minogue should go back to Oz too

(although she's ok to stay as she's pretty

)

And no law is being proposed that would force clergy to marry gay people. So Farage is claiming to be opposed to something that isn't being even remotely proposed.

And people believe him.

So how stupid do you want?

And on the basis of the [iTelegraph[/i forums over recent months, many* of those who have been declaring that they would vote UKIP were opposed, pure and simple, to equal marriage. FFS, some were calling for "civil disobedience" to 'defend' marriage. Is this the sign of rational, thinking people?



I gave a specific anecdote of my own father's idiocy. Do you think his attitude was coherent on the basis of what I posted?

Do you consider the conflation of Europe and the EU is a sign of intelligent debate?

Is it the sign of great intellects to assume that any problems that the UK has are the fault of the EU, however flawed those political institutions are?

Now you may well not agree with the above and I have not suggested that you do – but which of the above do you not consider to be signs of irrational attitudes?



* Note: that was "many" not 'all'.

OK this is a true case - my parents are in their 70s have always voted Tory but they have a some serious issues
1. They will be vote for the Torys whilst Cameron is in charge - the gay marriage thing was a final straw, call them what you will, but their view is as valid as yours.
2. The incumbent Tory MP is a homosexual - again this is something they find hard to deal with especially in a seat predominantly filled with young families.
3. They come from a generation where having the vote is precious.
4. No way they will vote Labour, the will not vote Liberals because they see their part in the current government so what is left - UKIP or BNP so they will probably vote for UKIP.

This is why people are voting UKIP because the government is rubbish and Labour don't have a credible platform.

The issue about gay marriage is more about your sensitivity than anything it is a non-issue to virtually everyone else. Gay people have been having relationships since creation why is there a sudden need to formalise it? The whole point of marriage was to formalise matters for procreation and removing the stigma from the offspring. That is also now a non-issue thankfully.

I'd suggest that their right to an opinion is as valid as mine or anyone else's, but unless they can provide a sound, reasoned explanation of why equal marriage is a bad thing (including actual evidence of what damage equal marriage would do to the institution of marriage, their own marriage, the country etc etc) then their view does not have the same validity as a view that does (from whatever side of the argument).



Okay. They have a view. They are entitled to that. But on what basis do they link sexuality – and "young families"? Is it a rational one?



I certainly hope that such a feeling is not limited to a single generation.



Well, there are other parties.



I mentioned the [iTelegraph[/i forums for a reason. For people there, declaring that they would vote UKIP precisely because of the issue of equal marriage, and for those calling for "civil disobedience" over the same matter, it clearly is not just a "non-issue".

And you're contradicting yourself anyway, since you've said, in this same post, that it was enough of an issue for your own parents that it was "the final straw".

Everyone except your intolerant parents, apparently.

I've ong said this about party politics, if we could chose specific policy we'd be better off, UKIP are abhorrent for their views on equality, Labour are equally abhorrent on their socialist ideals, as are the Conservatives for protecting greed. I wish I could criticise the Limp Dems, but they don't seem to stand for anything.

I don't even think we have that choice at present.

As mentioned earlier (in this thread or another?) one of Blair's first acts was to ditch Clause 4 on public ownership, which was, in effect, a way of taking the Labour Party away from any standard socialist philosophy.

Now it could be said that that was an inevitable consequence of the previous election defeats with more obviously socialist manifestos and/or because of the representations of the mass media (again, see previous post).

But once in power, Blair and his government continued with privatisation and deregulation – general approaches that I doubt anyone would seriously describe as socialist. And 'the third way' was arguably an attempt to step away from the left v right of previous decades (in this case, largely by furthering the neo-liberal agenda on the one hand while also investing in public services in the hope of mitigating the worst effects of 'trickle down' or lack thereof).

One of Brown's first acts as Chancellor was to deregulate the Bank of England – hardly a sociality action. And PFI, having been begun under Major, was carried on with a vengeance under Blair – and disastrously, if we look at the problems that have occurred as a direct result.

I go back to what I said previously: I think that part of the problem is that the 'old' rather obvious policies of the mainstream parties have changed on economics (not just that, but let's stick with that) and many of the electorate don't know what is what any more. And do not feel that there is a meaningful choice among the main parties – simply because they are so similar on so much. Conservatism, in the sense that it was used when I was growing up, is as much a thing of the past as socialism in the sense of old Labour.

A couple of points

The vast majority of the British population are descended from immigrants, we are a mix of every nation we have ever come into contact with. From the Romans, Saxon, Jutes , Vikings, Angles, Normans, French, Dutch , Hugenots, Indians, Africans etc etc. Thats why we have so much in common with the USA, we are mongrel nations and we need the diversity it brings to enhance our future. When they say they want to stop immigration they actually mean they want to select who comes here based on whatever white right wing half wits they deem we need to bring in.

UKIP won seats against the two Tory parties in the major Tory parties heartland, that will be more of a worry to them then it will Labour. Any splitting of the right wing will help Labour in every area and I dare say we will see some reaction to this ahead of the next Gen Election.

I am also a federal European, yes I do believe a United States of Europe is a good thing long term and one we should all aim for. The armed forces of Europe are moving closer togther and share resources as the world changes, we move into the new world or we stagnate and become an impoverished island attached to a Federal Europe.

or we could revert back to the Kingdom of Northumberland

My wife family are mostly Polish, My great grandfolks were Norwegian. I've no issue with immigration
Open borders though is stupid, why should already stretched resources be stretched further by an influx of more Eastern Europeans?

I wouldn't care if their country was Great Britain part 2, they ate English breakfasts, spoke English and were exactly the same as me, we can't accomodate them, it's that simple to me.

Open borders without a vastly improved infrastructure is just stupid, our Welfare State/Healthcare/Education are already at breaking point.

I wouldn't mind a bit of selfish insular politics for a while until we sort out our own house.

Money for starving Africans, ignore starving people on the streets of UK, Aid money for Indian children yet we have 'child poverty' in the UK.
Billions in debt but give it away to all and sundry.
No issue with 'foreigners' i do have issue with more people regardless when they are not sustainable.

Another thing the European Union, what's the need for centralising everything, one currency, one economic policy etc etc.
Can't we just all draw up benefical trade agreements and just leave it at that?

Is anyone proposing it?

I can live anywhere in the EU without any paperwork or a decent education, is that not open enough?

So what restrictions should be placed on you and the rest of us? Because it does actually work both ways.

try it and see how far you get

in fact, try driving a Nissan Pathfinder through the tunnel and not getting stopped and searched both ends, and if you want to borrow one, PM me.

Europe is nowhere near as "open" as UKIP or others would suggest.

That is the problem, SOME of what UKIP want to do is quite right, as is SOME of Labour and SOME of the Conservatives.

I know, i'd like an end to it, not anti immigration just letting anyone in just because they're born in an EU country is daft. If it was such a good idea wouldn't countries like USA and Australia have open borders?

I was quite happy with the way it was before the open EU borders, if i want to live in Germany i have no issue with having to qualify via a system of entry other than and more complex than BORN IN UK.

I wanted to move to NZ (still could) but fell just short of the points needed, i'm currently in the process of making sure i have the few letters after my name to help that.

If everyone is scrutinised as much as this then i have a little more faith in the governance and quality of people entering.
I'm in the Quality not Quantity camp.

I'll reiterate i'm NOT anti immigration.

UKIP could be a monumental cockup, i'll not dispute that but both Labour and Tory have had their turn in my eyes, and i have faith in neither

1) I am not saying that you are anti-immigration, so let's put that one to bed.

2) What do you feel about someone moving to a different part of the UK for look for work? Should that depend on education, infrastructure being able to cope, work availablilty etc? If not, why not?

You are aware that although the USA is ostensibly a single nation, it is in reality a commonwealth of 50 individual States? There is a clue in the name.

We're all part of the same system though, tax, health, education, the standards are the same or in some case the targets are the same.
I moved to better myself from the North-West to the South-East, under micro scrutiny makes me look hypocritical but i'm still paying taxes to fund people in the North-West, their children, their education, their health.

An argument could be that if everything was centralised and all of the EU followed the same pattern/standards across the board then that would be exactly the same scenario as the question you posed but it's a pipedream, countries have their own economies and rely on different means to support themselves, small example is we can't market ourselves as a great summer hotspot like Spain/Portugal/Greece etc etc so tourism isn't as big and/or differently marketed in this country.

You can't create a catch all economic system and I'd love some great socialist world like a Star Trek ran Earth but the truth is in the real world we are corrupt and untrustworthy as a species, with a little bit of power we only look to feather our own nest.

And England is 48 individual counties

Not quite. There are substantial differences on a number of issues between, say, England and Wales. Prescription charges, for instance. In Scotland, tuition fees. In Northern Ireland, different laws on abortion.

We have regional tax variations via council tax.

Education has vast differences – and these are increasing – simply because not all schools are state schools, and many are run under a very different ethos with very different standards.



I'm not trying to 'micro scrutinise' you – or to make you look anything. I'm attempting to explore the issues.



We're a different sort of tourist destination – we score well for history and culture, for instance.

But then again, different parts of the UK (a federation of countries) have different tourist benefits. I suspect not everyone of the four nations has the same (pro-rata) levels of tourism – let alone all the constituent parts of England. The likes of London and Stratford and York will be helping subsidise other areas that see very few visitors.

But to go back, you made comments earlier about infrastructure, for instance. Now if you look at internal migration within England alone, then much of it has, over the last 30 or so years, been toward London and the south east for, in essence, the reasons that you – and I – moved in that direction.

That inevitably puts strains on the infrastructure – I think there are issues around precisely that, given all the new flats I see going up for all the people moving into my general area, which is getting particularly trendy with young professionals. These aren't your eastern Europeans. Some are from mainland Europe (it is worth noting that we are Europeans, whether we like it or not), but some are from the US/Canada and the majority are from the UK.

Should that be allowed to happen, if increasing stress on the infrastructure is an issue?

Counties that are not allowed to levy their own taxes, apart from rates etc nor allowed to pass laws particular to their specific geo-political area