Local council elections are not usually considered as a direct reflection of the strength of political parties, more as a sign of satisfaction, or more usually dissatisfaction, with the ruling party

This time, perhaps, there is something new to think about. At the time of writing, UKIP had as many council seats as Labour.

What does this suggest? Disillusionment with the Conservative/Lib/Dem coalition, not much hope from the Labour opposition, very definite dislike of the EC and the current immigration policies. A distressing swing towards the policies of the racist BNP.

What does this indicate about the next general election in Britain?

As Paddy Pantsdown said:-

1. Ex-Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown

   tweets: It's not the end; it's not the beginning of the end. But it might be the end of the beginning of the fight back.

Although UKIP have increased their share of the poll by an unexpectedly large percentage (around 25% of the total votes cast) the BNP and other more right-wing groups have lost just about every seat they held.

Remember that one of the planks in the UKIP platform is 'No more windmills' so that will get a lot of country votes. The Greens are net losers over the few seats they held, so it seems that the little parties to the far left and far right have been pushed aside.

The real losers are Labour, in my opinion, as they have failed to claw back even half of the seats they lost in 2009 (these are the first follow-up elections for those 2009 seats). It's bad for Camoron and Cloggie, but even worse for Millibrain.

I'm afraid that it shows a regrettable swing to the right in British politics.

I voted to remain in what was then the EEC in Wilson's referendum as we were assured it was just a free trade area and British sovereignty would never be affected; we all know how that panned out!

So I was initially attracted to UKIP as I thought they were purely an anti EU party; but looking more closely at their policies, particularly those on immigration, I now feel they are little better than the BNP, EDL etc.

Hopefully, as is common in local elections, the votes gained by UKIP were mainly protest votes and the people voting for them will revert back to supporting a mainstream party come the next general election; whichever party that may be.

Yes, you can never predict much from local elections. The party in power almost always loses.

The best thing to come out of the election is the poor showing of the BNP. UKIP's strength, however, should cause the major parties to re-examine their ideas about Europe and immigration.

But I like windmills, HB! Real windmills, that is, not the ones generating wind=power.

It's the big monstrosities that generate power whilst eating money that I was referring to.

For these local elections I had one piece of paper through my door - a window sticker for Labour. No visits from any candidate or activist, no other bumf from any party. Just my official notification of polling station and time of voting.

If all the main parties are so cavalier with their potential voters, is it any wonder that many people stuck their 'X' in the UKIP box and two fingers to the Etonians.

The sick joke behind all this is that the UKIP couldn't agree on a policy.... but people still voted for them.

The candidate in British elections for whom I have had the most sympathy was the good soul who campaigned for independence for Cumberland (when it was still Cumberland) and more pay for mole-catchers. I felt he had the right attitude of contempt for politicians. And then there was Screaming Lord Sutch......

The really sad casualty of the recent local elections was the demise in South Lancashire of the last councillor standing for the Idle Toad Party. A tragic loss to representational democracy.

Only in England....!

Cameron at first dismissed UKIP supporters as closet racists, he is eating his words now. If any reminder were needed the rapid rise of populist political movements is a sure sign people have lost faith with the mainstream parties. I expect as we head towards a general election all the major parties will try to steal UKIP's clothes, without of course committing themselves to any meaningful changes.

Send in the clowns, well maybe they're here. And let's hope so as the Country is going down the tubes without a radical change in direction.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318751/UKIP-clowns-laugh-Anti-Europe-partys-surge-PM-forced-eat-words.html

Send in the clowns, well maybe they're here. And let's hope so as the Country is going down the tubes without a radical change in direction.

According to Sondheim, the lyrics 'well maybe they're here', is relating to all of us being fools.

Well, the way we are voting at present, wherever you may be, he probably got that just about right,

One in five Britons is dipping into their savings to buy food.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22417334

Not directly related to the UKIP surge, but a good reason why many people are dissatisfied with the current Government.

One in five Britons is dipping into their savings to buy food.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22417334

Not directly related to the UKIP surge, but a good reason why many people are dissatisfied with the current Government.

And another statement from the BBC was that the average Brit has only 19 days of savings to live on if they lose their job.

This is the pernicious side of the welfare state - that it makes people careless with theiir money, buying lots of non-necessities rather than saving some of their money for a rainy day.

'I must have a 42" TV, this 36" set does not have 3D facility. I know I bought it two months ago, but I need the Smart system".

"My five-year-old is starting school, so must have the latest smart-phone. He won't accept a basic mobile phone."

"Yes, I have another suit. In fact I have six more - I like to look fresh each day."

"I order food in most evenings, because I can't cook."

And then, when their job fails, they continue in the same manner, confident that the State will prop them up with all manner of subsidies when they cannot find another job that 'suits their lifestyle'.

And when the State doesn't prop them up any more, what happens? Chaos and bloody murder, probably quite literally.

UKIP, and the BNP, would be the biggest gainers (maybe not the BNP; UKIP seems to have stolen much of their support)

The question is; are UKIP a flash in the pan? I suspect not seeing as they represent a deep disillusionment and cynicism towards the main parties. This is hardly surprising seeing as about three quarters of our laws and regulations seem to come from Brussels, even our judiciary can't even deport undesirables. Furthermore there seems to be precious little ideological difference between the Tories and Labour, who have in effect met in the middle, neither will give up money printing and neither is looking further than getting elected.

UKIP are probably to the right of the Tories, which gives the Tories a dilemma, either move to the right to counter UKIP, or stay put and lose their niche. But there is another aspect to consider. The flood of immigrants into the UK has put a strain on all public services, which actually hits the traditional working class more than it does the middle classes. If UKIP target this demographic they can take votes of Labour too. I hope this does indeed happen, and it would serve Labour right for betraying their old core voters in search of some Federalist multicultural ideology.

I could be wrong, as I haven't actually been to Britain for many years, but aren't many of the public services now largely manned by those very immigrants you blame for putting a strain on them?

I could be wrong, as I haven't actually been to Britain for many years, but aren't many of the public services now largely manned by those very immigrants you blame for putting a strain on them?

As Prince Philip said on meeting a Filipino nurse in a UK hospital - "I'm surprised your Country isn't half empty now, judging by the number of you working for the NHS". Well, yes I'm sure the public sector is where many do go, but immigrants do have families, and extended ones at that who need supporting. According to the Telegraph in 2012 a staggering 75% of Muslim women are unemployed and 50% of men are. The corresponding figures in 2004 were 18% and 13% respectively. The cost of this is a staggering 13 billion GBP per year. I don't know the stats for other groups such as Eastern Europeans, but suspect they are somewhat better due to better English and different family demographics.

Whatever, the figures are a national disgrace, but it's not hard to see why Labour don't beat the Tories round the head with them.

I could be wrong, as I haven't actually been to Britain for many years, but aren't many of the public services now largely manned by those very immigrants you blame for putting a strain on them?

The indigenous population sit at home complaining of depression or a sore back while immigrants do all the work.

Claiming a grand a month in disability benefits of course....rent paid...bills paid.

Thanks very much!

I could be wrong, as I haven't actually been to Britain for many years, but aren't many of the public services now largely manned by those very immigrants you blame for putting a strain on them?

The indigenous population sit at home complaining of depression or a sore back while immigrants do all the work.

Claiming a grand a month in disability benefits of course....rent paid...bills paid.

Thanks very much!

Which will change when the benefit caps are brought in.

But there are many different types of immigrant - the asylum seekers, the EU workers, the EU travellers, the families of people already domiciled in the UK, the workers imported for a particular job (such as Filipina nurses), students paying for tertiary education, and so on.

Camoron is talking about introducing an Aussie-type points system, but I cannot see how that will work with EU migrants. He's also talking about people only drawing benefits and NHS treatment when they've a minimum of 2 years contributions - but I cannot see councils allowing immigrant families to live on the streets, nor can I see the NHS turning away patients who need treatment for serious or life-threatening illnesses. It's just a knee-jerk reaction to the UKIP earthquake. Wait for the EU elections next year. It'll be another anti-everything UKIP landslide.

I think Cameron, for once, is going in the right direction, but still hasn't worked out the way to do it!

Perhaps, when an immigrant arrives, his permit to stay should be conditional on his obtaining employment within a specified period, with deportation (strictly enforced) if he/she fails. It would be cheaper to deport than to pay benefits. Benefits should be conditional on a certain number of years' full paid employment.

According to the Telegraph in 2012 a staggering 75% of Muslim women are unemployed and 50% of men are. The corresponding figures in 2004 were 18% and 13% respectively. The cost of this is a staggering 13 billion GBP per year. I don't know the stats for other groups such as Eastern Europeans, but suspect they are somewhat better due to better English and different family demographics.

Whatever, the figures are a national disgrace, but it's not hard to see why Labour don't beat the Tories round the head with them.

How many of these unemployed Muslims are immigrants and how many are British?

Most Muslims living in the UK are British citizens. Muslims have been living in the UK for well over 100 years, the first mosque in the UK was established in 1889. Near to it is an old Muslim cemetery, where Muslim soldiers who died on the Western Front during the First World War were buried until their remains were returned to India after the war.

Muslim soldiers in what was the Indian Army, and other parts of the old empire, fought and died for us in two world wars. Many Muslim soldiers serve in the British army today, and some have died. Let's not forget that.

High unemployment among Muslims, and other non white ethnic groups, are due to many factors; not least being prejudice.

From a Guardian article last December.

South Asian Muslim women have the highest rate of unemployment in terms of both religion and ethnicity in the UK. Many are highly educated, ambitious women like Shazba, a speech therapist and single mother, who struggles to understand the consistent rejections. She has been unemployed for five years despite a masters qualification and extensive voluntary experience: "I've been through numerous interviews for my first job. Needless to say, I feel I'm not getting the job as employers see I wear hijab and look for reasons to turn me down." When I push her on how exactly she can be sure her headscarf is the problem, given high rates of unemployment more broadly, she responds: "It's body language, tonality – I once walked into an interview and the interviewer's face just crashed."

Yes, the high unemployment rate among Muslims is a national disgrace; but it's not because Muslims come to the UK expecting to live on benefits!

I think Cameron, for once, is going in the right direction, but still hasn't worked out the way to do it!

Perhaps, when an immigrant arrives, his permit to stay should be conditional on his obtaining employment within a specified period, with deportation (strictly enforced) if he/she fails. It would be cheaper to deport than to pay benefits. Benefits should be conditional on a certain number of years' full paid employment.

What about, for example, the Thai wife of a British man who has children to care for? Should she be forced to find a job or be deported?

I suggest that you read up on the financial requirements for family migration.

In addition to those requirements, family immigrants cannot claim public funds, and their British partner cannot claim any for them, until they have Indefinite Leave to Remain; which now takes at least 5 years to obtain.

Benefits to which they may be entitled through their NI contributions are excluded from this, of course.

The ability of other immigrants to enter the UK via the points based system for work is dependent upon them having a job and an employer to sponsor them. They, too, cannot claim any public funds until they have ILR. No immigrant can; except, of course, any to which they may be entitled to through their NI contributions.

Migrants from the EU and EEA are not subject to the UK immigration rules; they have freedom of movement treaty rights which allow them to come to the UK to live. British citizens have the same rights in all other EEA countries.

Although one of these rights is to enter as a jobseeker, if someone doing so has not found a job within a reasonable time, usually three months, they have to leave.

You're much better informed than I am, 7by7, and I freely admit it!

I did not say anything about family migration. In a brief post I wasn't going to go into details.

There seems to be some agreement that Britain is paying out too much in benefits to immigrants. Then, which immigrants are they, and please, 7by7, tell us how you think this obvious problem should be tackled.

Agreement by whom? Readers of the Daily Mail and similar?

The myth of immigrants flooding into the UK and receiving benefits is just that; a myth.

The fact is that immigrants to the UK who are subject to immigration control, i.e. do not have ILR or the equivalent, whether entering via the PBS, family migration or any other route covered by the immigration rules, cannot claim most public funds until they have ILR.

The only real exceptions to this are public funds based on NI contributions, where if the immigrant has paid sufficient contributions and meets the other requirements for the benefit concerned, then they can claim and receive it.

See Public Funds and this pdf file.

As can be seen from the pdf document, the UK does have bilateral agreements with some non EEA countries which allows nationals of those countries living in the UK to claim some public funds, and vice versa.

EEA regulations means that the situation is different for EEA nationals exercising their treaty rights to live in the UK; as it is for UK nationals doing the same in another EEA state.

Basically, they are able to claim most, but not all, public funds, contributory and non contributory, without losing their right of residence as long as they do not become an unreasonable burden upon the state. See this pdf document.

So, immigrants claiming public funds is not an obvious problem.

The problem is the myth put about by the right wing press and those who desire to stir up anti immigrant sentiments.

What would I do? Every time anyone broadcasts this myth, I'd publicise the facts to prove them wrong.

This article is over a year old, but it sums up the situation nicely.

Playing the blame game - it's all the immigrants fault...

Thanks, 7by7.

Rather than say what they ought to do, here is what they are actually planning to do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/08/queens-speech-curb-eu-migrants

Thanks, 7by7.

Rather than say what they ought to do, here is what they are actually planning to do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/08/queens-speech-curb-eu-migrants

This article is a projection of what the Grauniad expects to be in the Queen's speech. In a few hours time we will know what is actually proposed.

The problems with immigrants from the EU will not be solved by these proposals. The problem is really with the unskilled EU migrants, who are prepared to work for less than minimum wages and will live several (say eight men) to one rented accommodation. This undercuts the local labour, who want to work at minimum wage or better and live in one-family style. There is no problem with skilled tradesmen, medical workers, so on. In Cambridge we have many Eastern European emergency medical staff, who may be earning minimum for their grade, but are doing a good job and are thus helping the NHS to maintain standards and save a little money.

Other problems are the illegals, where the press state that there are 300,000 untraceable people, foreign criminals, where again there are reports that London is suffering a big crime wave from Romanian gangs (don't know if these are Roma [gypsies] or ordinary citizens of Romania). And this before Romanians and Bulgarians have the borders opened to them. Also there are political refugees, such as Abu Khatada, who seem to be supported by the state even when they have entered the country illegally. These make the headlines, but are a small minority that can be sorted out.

We need national identity cards and everyone to be recorded in a population register. I have had to have both residence books and work permits in most countries that I have been in, and it has never been to my disadvantage. I cannot understand the government reluctance to introduce such measures. This could then control the amount of state help doled out to citizens and migrants - but the ID cards would have to be foolproof.

I would disagree that most migrants from the EEA are prepared to work for less than the minimum wage; especially as anyone employing them for less than this figure would be breaking the law. Not saying it doesn't happen, though.

I do know of some Polish builders who are living as you describe, but they tell me once their contract is finished they're going back to Poland. Similar to the Geordie brickies in the old TV show Auf Wiedersehen, Pet; remember that?

In my line of work I have lots of contact with the highways departments of local authorities, especially in London. Most of them almost exclusively employ immigrants from eastern Europe in jobs such as street cleaners. Ask them why and you'll be told that it's because British people wont take the job as they consider it beneath them!

Personally, I am in favour of an ID card, though not the dogs breakfast proposed by the previous government.

But introducing them would be very unpopular; for some reason the British people feel that ID cards are an infringement of their liberty; as the furore when the last government proposed them shows. Such a furore that the government dropped the idea.

As we all know, governments rarely do what's right; they do what they think will be popular; as the subject of this topic shows!

We had ID cards during WWII, and people grudgingly accepted them. I expect the Nazis were pretty good at forging them too!

I would be in favour of ID cards if the number of illegals is so high... or perhaps I should say, to stop the number increasing.

Whilst there are many arguments in favour of compulsory ID cards, I fail to see how it would significantly combat illegal immigration.

Illegals are already, well; illegal.

They cannot legally work, have no legal access to state benefits, not even the NHS.

They are already subject to arrest and removal if discovered.

Would those who, illegally, employ illegals stop doing so because the person had no ID card? Doubtful; employers already have to ensure that anyone they employ is legally entitled to work in the UK and are subject to a £10,000 fine per illegal employee. Hasn't stopped some people from doing it.

It may have some small effect if something similar to the situation in Thailand existed.

That is, give the police the power to stop anyone at anytime and demand to see their ID card, or a valid passport with a valid visa in it if non resident, together the power to arrest anyone who could not do so.

But that hasn't stopped illegals in Thailand, has it?

Britain is not Thailand yet; at least, I don't think so.

If there were ID cards in Britain, it would be a legal requirement to show them in all sorts of situations. If there seemed to be a lot of illegals in a particular area, yes, the police could, say, check all the passengers on a bus. But I think most of the effect would be deterrent.

I could be wrong, as I haven't actually been to Britain for many years, but aren't many of the public services now largely manned by those very immigrants you blame for putting a strain on them?

The indigenous population sit at home complaining of depression or a sore back while immigrants do all the work.

Claiming a grand a month in disability benefits of course....rent paid...bills paid.

Thanks very much!

I'm on disability and even in the UK I would NOT get my rent or bills paid as officially I live with my sister. If I did live in the UK then I would have to find my own place which would indeed be paid for up to a certain level depending on location. In London, where I am from I could get 100 quid a week which wouldn't get me sod all and in Liverpool I could get 60 odd which would be better in a way but certainly not in an area I would be willing to live. With any of the above I would not get my bills paid.

It's cheaper for me to live over here and pay for everything myself including rent than it would be for me to return to the UK with the taxpayer paying the rent. I have only EVER claimed what I need to live since I became a T12 paraplegic and I am sick to the back teeth of the government and people (via media sensationalism) calling me a scrounger. For the last 6 years I have had to keep threatening legal action against the government at which point they back down. So far this year they have decided to dock me 120 quid a month because I 'must' be getting better! By the time I return (end of June) they will most likely have backed down again but this time there is one difference, one HUGE difference, this time I will press charges regardless of the knowledge it will cost the UK tax payer in the end.

UKIP is doing so well because of their anti EU stance which I agree with fully. It's so long ago that I cannot now remember the date (7-8 years?) when the NET cost of being a member of the EU club passed 1TGBP. The UK went cap in hand to the EU in the 70's and they helped us. What level of debt does the UK owe for this action? Does not 1T GBP cover it? Perhaps, perhaps, Australia and New Zealand who we shafted big time will welcome us back seeing that we always pay off our debt?