UKIP will cause more overpopulation in the longterm

We can't all be winners you only have to look at the past to find out how the attitude you have lead to communism.

You don't address the housing crisis, the NHS under strain, schools places lacking, transportation over crowded.

Communism has never really been attempted though people have pretended to be Communist but have not really been Communist.Russia was never Communist George Orwell's book Animal Farm describes how much Russia differed from Communism very clearly with metaphors of animals and the same can be said for other so called Communist states, really their Communism was just a different kind of Capitalism(where the Government had everything instead of Businesses).

Social classes and money were still in Russia and are in other Communist countries, the gini index of countries under Communism isn't close to 0(so they aren't communist just liars), famines happened in Russia which doesn't make sense under Communism as you are right in a way either the whole country starves or noone starves that is Communism and yet only some starved in Russia.

The problem with having to transition to a command economy first is that the state is just as self interested as any person (how could it not be as a human construct). Hence these countries become socialist but never communist because there's no incentive for the state to progress to that.

Some people feel that they deserve a better standard of life than people born in other countries. Fair enough, whilst I don't agree with it, I realise some people are going to have these views and nothing you can say will change it.

Thats selfishness though a good government could progress to communist as there is no real moral incentive not to do

Do you not think that it would be a failure? Like the numerous times similar regimes have been attempted in history, resulting in the deaths of 100+ million people. In reality, on a large scale, things like desire, selfishness and greed would cause it to fail. I would have thought that since you've read Animal Farm, you would understand how unfair it would be.

I am also not convinced that much it would fail due to Psychology I read a book showing that people work the hardest when they don't get paid, as soon as they are paid their hard work drops and increases(this is due to thinking their labour isn't valued) as they are paid more.Therefore, a Communist society where everyone got the same but everyone worked for the good of society could work very well.Inequality has been shown to cause a lot of crime due to poverty,envy and class divides this would be avoided by Communism.

I would have thought that because it strips one of their identity, as well as giving them nothing to aspire to, their hard-work ethic and drive go, and they would just be unmotivated. I agree how it might work in theory, but in the real world, for reasons that I've previously mentioned, as well as different intelligence levels of individuals (another topic entirely), I don't think it ever will.

Thats selfishness though a good government could progress to communist as there is no real moral incentive not to do and they already have enough money so should help others with it and can create a good life for all?-I think you are highlighting a good point as to why good parties like the Green Party won't get people are too evil to vote for such a party.

If you progress from a capitalist social democracy its possible (Scandinavia) however i don't think it will it ever occur from a socialist revolution because the power vacuum will see the strong rule the weak.

The strong will still rule the weak but just not financially, a Communist society will have a lot of power to control society how it likes but it must scrap economic freedom and distribute money fairly and forcefully if it has to.There might be no money inequality in society but there would be a power and potentially status inequality which is unpreventable.Although debates and elections would still exist but people would only be able to vote for Communist leaders so people who the people didn't like would still be booted out.

Are we talking about the abolition of money and socialist direct democracy or do you want to transition to your classic command economy but be nice to people.

Are you implying money is your only motivation?

In other words introduce socialism and increase taxes...

No. I meant that people are driven in the workplace by promotions, pay-rises, etc. Why would you be driven by "hobbies,love,relati onships,friendships,sex" when it comes to working?

"(studies have shown life satisfaction stops increasing after a certain amount of money anyway so income above that is pointless)"

I'm sorry but I don't think that is true at all. A lot of people will always want more.

"I believe in removing the corruption that striving for money brings and allow people to have freedom in other areas controlling money will keep society fairer, reduce crime and stop poverty."

It wouldn't necessarily, as everyone would be in the equivalent of a lower-class. The upper class formed would likely cause corruption sooner or later. Like I've said, why does it matter if it works in theory, if it never would in reality? You're comparing it to extant capitalism, which we all know isn't perfect.

I just want to express my respect for you here. It isn't just due to the fact that I strongly agree with what you just said but you seem to be the first person to actually engage with the original post.

It may be because of where I come from, but I can't see how the UK is overpopulated.

London is, that's obvious; but nowhere else. The second most-populated city is Birmingham with barely a million people, and there only are eight in total that have even crossed half a million.

That's pathetic.

What's one obvious shared by metropolitans that are major global economic powerhouses in the world:

Shanghai (24 million people; $297 billion GDP)
Beijing (22 million; $314 billion)
Moscow (12m; $520b)
Seoul (10m; $409b)
Tokyo (9m; $1479b)
NYC (8m; $1550b)
London (8m; $565b)
Hong Kong (7m; $274b)
Singapore (5m; $298b)
Taipei (4m; $260b)
LA (4m; $466b)
?

They all have loads and loads of people. Whilst having more people doesn't necessarily translate to having a bigger GDP, the key is the area needs to have good infrastructure and have been developed. And the UK has this. The infrastructure of the non-London so-called 'cities' may not be the best but they're there.

Having more people just existing in an area already creates a better economy. With people, there comes needs, there comes opportunities. This is why London contributed 22% of UK's GDP with 44% immigrants whilst Cornwall with 3% immigrants is depressing. If there aren't enough houses - build more of them; if there isn't enough land - build skyscrapers.

The argument on for example the NHS is laughable. Are you suggesting that none of the immigrants will work? Because the more people are working, no matter how low the wages are, the more taxes the government will be getting.

If you want the UK to be competitive or even relevant on the world stage economically (and of course culturally, militarily, and in many other terms), you will need to let its population grow. One city above 5m and two cities above 1m aren't cutting it. And of course there are housing shortages in many cities - these so-called 'cities' are all terribly tiny. On global terms, their sizes are closer to a city's district, or maybe even an estate.

What UKIP is proposing to do is to make Britain irrelevant. Is to make it fail. Is to erase it from history altogether. Stopping immigration is going to make the economy stall. Leaving the EU is going to severely harm Britain's competitiveness economically, and controlling the already tiny population is just going to make the UK a lesser factor economically. Nigel's point on using the Commonwealth is laughable at best. He complains about Eastern European countries being included in the EU, yet he couldn't see how there are many more countries, especially the African ones, that are even worse economies with the potential of having a lot more low-skill immigrants to come in?

It's fine if you want to maintain a white 'tradition'. Or close Britain. Or resist change and globalisation. Vote UKIP all you want, just know that if they get their way, Britain will fall harsher than Madonna at the Brit Awards.