By-elections: Ukip win 1st MP in Clacton, close 2nd in Heywood

[AgnesIO]

Just saw this question from the Survation Poll....

Public agree overwhelmingly with Farage on permanent settlement & HIV status.

I honestly couldn't care what the uneducated population of the UK thinks. The stigma surrounding HIV today is still disgusting, and - to be frank - unnecessary. I will reply to your other post in full later, got a call to make now.

[AgnesIO]

He means those applying for permanent settlement - which is right, considering how HIV drug treatment over a lifetime costs around £500,000 per person. Many other countries also take this into account with citizenship.

He should probably clarify this. Your statistic looks lovely, but it assumes that people are coming in at a very young age with HIV, and I imagine the majority are not.

Additionally, the fact it is currently free to have the treatment on the NHS can be changed (as it was before), although if someone is contributing in taxes they have as much right to use the NHS as anyone else.

Those are his comments without the hysterical Guardian opinion placed into it.

Regarding these comments, I thought Farage was always against a "me too" kind of government and yet, here he is justifying his comments... because other countries do it.

HIV does not have to be life-threatening, anyone with HIV can live a perfectly normal and happy life.

When Britons are being denied life-prolonging drugs on the NHS we can't treat the rest of the world.

It is after all called the National Health Sevice, not the International Health Service.

You don't need to accept people not here to work, but if they are - and they have a skill that Britain could use - they should not be prevented from having the opportunity because of HIV. It is time to accept people with HIV for what they are; human beings.

Furthermore, you do not have to give the drugs completely for free; they never used to be.

Also, of the 38% figure, how many of those people were infected with HIV whilst in the UK? That is another important factor to weigh in (and it also means that the significant majority of people infected with HIV were born inside the UK. Awkward.).

In bold.

[Inseriousity.]

Wrote a blog bout this and Payasam's post just reminded me of it lol:

Two by-elections results this morning: UKIP won their first directly-elected MP. Labour held onto their seat in Heywood and Middleton but their majority was decreased to under 1000 votes. Labour and the Tories are running scared of UKIP and the voters not acting in the way they have taken for granted for decades. This post isn’t about UKIP propaganda though. It’s about addressing the elephant in the room that the three main parties all think but would never dare say to your face: The voters are stupid.

Less than an hour after Labour’s victory at the by-election, the winning candidate, Liz McInnes, gave an interview where she was already spouting the Labour line dictated by Westminister spin doctors, avoiding questions, using the political double-speak where they avoid saying what they really think and expecting it will fool the voters. It doesn’t. It is blindingly obvious to anyone with a brain… but that’s the point. They don’t think you have one.
Then in sweeps UKIP. They’re anti-establishment, anti-Westminster but more importantly, they speak as a human, they’re a refreshing change. Underneath the glossy surface, their policies are limited, they U-turn on ideas and suggestions before you’ve even got your head around it, they are as political savvy as the main parties so perhaps they are not the change they are making themselves out to be.

Labour and Tories strategy for dealing with UKIP is about educating the voters about UKIP. It’s all about teaching voters the truth that you are clearly too blind and ignorant to see and if only Labour and Tories would come in, they would rescue you from your misconceptions and delusion. It is inconceivable to them that voters would actually believe in what UKIP are offering. UKIP are flimsy charismatic showmanship, have policies that shift around depending on where they are but their greatest strength is that they don’t talk down to people. If something changes (and it very often does), they just explain why in a simple way as if they know people will understand and because we’re not stupid, we do.

I wouldn’t vote for UKIP personally but as this is about what I would do as Prime Minister, I think something we can learn from them that the other main parties have forgotten: People are not stupid.

Set out a vision about the country you want it to be, pitch it to voters, be realistic, explain to them that it won’t be plain sailing and things won’t always go to plan. When they don’t go to plan, explain why it didn’t. Drop the soundbites and the puppetry; let people be people with their own passions, their own vision, persuade them to vote for the issues the way you want them to by explaining to them why your way is the right way, why it’s good for the country. Don’t avoid difficult questions to avoid the wrath of the party whips/leadership. People aren’t stupid; they’ll understand that people will have different opinions to their leadership from time to time and it’s strong leadership that turns this into a strength rather than a weakness.

Voters are not stupid. If the main parties recognise this, they might be able to save themselves but judging by their actions so far, they’re too stupid to notice.

[-:Undertaker:-]

He should probably clarify this. Your statistic looks lovely, but it assumes that people are coming in at a very young age with HIV, and I imagine the majority are not.

I have no idea, although both younger and older would be terrible.

A younger migrant with HIV will require lifetime treatment costing around half a million per person meaning he'd be unlikely to break even with HM Treasury - in which case, if immigration is about economics (as we're frequently told) then it would make no sense to allow him in.

An older migrant with HIV will also require lifetime treatment, but will also require other treatment for other ailments - as well as the later stages of HIV/Aids (which are horrific) - and again it makes no sense economically to allow them in.

Additionally, the fact it is currently free to have the treatment on the NHS can be changed (as it was before), although if someone is contributing in taxes they have as much right to use the NHS as anyone else.

And that's exactly why I wouldn't grant citizenship to a foreign with HIV or an expensive life-threatening disease.

Regarding these comments, I thought Farage was always against a "me too" kind of government and yet, here he is justifying his comments... because other countries do it.

He's actually said many times he wants a controlled immigration system like Australia and other countries have, I have no idea why this is so hard for people to understand or agree with. It's like with grammar schools, Ukip support grammar schools but a more German-flexible grammar system unlike the older British grammar system.

HIV does not have to be life-threatening, anyone with HIV can live a perfectly normal and happy life.

Yes they can, with very expensive drugs over the course of their lives.

What makes you think British people want to pay for the healthcare of the rest of the world?

You don't need to accept people not here to work, but if they are - and they have a skill that Britain could use - they should not be prevented from having the opportunity because of HIV. It is time to accept people with HIV for what they are; human beings.

They are human beings but you need to accept that the NHS has limited resources and that British people aren't keen on the idea of their relatives being denied cancer drug treatments because of costs only for a bloke with HIV to step off the plane and be entitled to £500,000+ worth of HIV treatment for the rest of his life.

Furthermore, you do not have to give the drugs completely for free; they never used to be.

So you support partially privatising the NHS?

Again, given support for the NHS is very high (which I personally don't agree with but hey ho) what makes you think the British public are going to want to start paying for the NHS in order to subsidise the healthcare of migrants?

The poll is pretty crystal clear.

Also, of the 38% figure, how many of those people were infected with HIV whilst in the UK? That is another important factor to weigh in (and it also means that the significant majority of people infected with HIV were born inside the UK. Awkward.).

That doesn't apply to the debate: we're arguing whether people with HIV should be granted citizenship (thus granting them 'free' healthcare rights like the rest of us) if they are known to have HIV.

I say no.

Wrote a blog bout this and Payasam's post just reminded me of it lol:

Two by-elections results this morning: UKIP won their first directly-elected MP. Labour held onto their seat in Heywood and Middleton but their majority was decreased to under 1000 votes. Labour and the Tories are running scared of UKIP and the voters not acting in the way they have taken for granted for decades. This post isn’t about UKIP propaganda though. It’s about addressing the elephant in the room that the three main parties all think but would never dare say to your face: The voters are stupid.

Interesting post, and I would agree with it: political correctness has sucked any life out of politics.

If you ask me though and going by polling, the biggest elephant in the room is immigration.

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly couldn't care what the uneducated population of the UK thinks. The stigma surrounding HIV today is still disgusting, and - to be frank - unnecessary. I will reply to your other post in full later, got a call to make now.

This post is just what Mike (Inseriousity) has been talking about, that because most normal people aren't social justice warriors/live in the London PC bubble then they're told by all the major parties that they're extreme loons.

If you ask me, the extreme position is that of the LibLabCon cartel which is providing costly healthcare (with a spiralling debt) and allowing hundreds and thousands of unskilled people into this bloated country every year.

That's the uneducated and extreme position, not the fact that Britons should come first.

[AgnesIO]

I have no idea, although both younger and older would be terrible.

A younger migrant with HIV will require lifetime treatment costing around half a million per person meaning he'd be unlikely to break even with HM Treasury - in which case, if immigration is about economics (as we're frequently told) then it would make no sense to allow him in.

An older migrant with HIV will also require lifetime treatment, but will also require other treatment for other ailments - as well as the later stages of HIV/Aids (which are horrific) - and again it makes no sense economically to allow them in.

In which case, charge people who do not have citizenship in the UK for the treatment. If they have already been taking ARV's then you will not have to worry about the later stages of HIV (and, heh, I know that the later stages are horrific - you don't need to tell me )

And that's exactly why I wouldn't grant citizenship to a foreign with HIV or an expensive life-threatening disease.

Nigel Farage never mentioned citizenship in his comments.

He's actually said many times he wants a controlled immigration system like Australia and other countries have, I have no idea why this is so hard for people to understand or agree with. It's like with grammar schools, Ukip support grammar schools but a more German-flexible grammar system unlike the older British grammar system.



Yes they can, with very expensive drugs over the course of their lives.

What makes you think British people want to pay for the healthcare of the rest of the world?

Heh, people seem fairly content with paying money to help fend of the ebola crisis.

They are human beings but you need to accept that the NHS has limited resources and that British people aren't keen on the idea of their relatives being denied cancer drug treatments because of costs only for a bloke with HIV to step off the plane and be entitled to £500,000+ worth of HIV treatment for the rest of his life.

Whilst neither of us have the statistics, I somehow doubt people step off the plane with the intention to just grab ARVs. It is pretty rare for people to be denied drugs solely because the NHS won't fund it; the normal reason is that the drugs have not been approved for use in the UK.


That doesn't apply to the debate: we're arguing whether people with HIV should be granted citizenship (thus granting them 'free' healthcare rights like the rest of us) if they are known to have HIV.

I say no.

The debate never refers to granting anyone citizenship.

This post is just what Mike (Inseriousity) has been talking about, that because most normal people aren't social justice warriors/live in the London PC bubble then they're told by all the major parties that they're extreme loons.

If you ask me, the extreme position is that of the LibLabCon cartel which is providing costly healthcare (with a spiralling debt) and allowing hundreds and thousands of unskilled people into this bloated country every year.

That's the uneducated and extreme position, not the fact that Britons should come first.
I am not branding the public loons. Merely questioning what their knowledge is of HIV. If it is anything like the majority of young people I give talks to, I somewhat doubt it is very high.

Lastly, I wouldn't necessarily say you have to give it completely free - just I do not see why someone should be banned from entering the UK just because they have HIV.