Off Topic Political Debate

If he'd said 'some parts of towns in the UK', I wouldn't have taken exception to it, as I know it's the case. 'Parts of the UK' implies something completely different, as proved by the demographic breakdown I gave for his examples.

In France here there are huge amounts of UK citizens that don't bother learning French and live in their own little communities, it's nothing different, people struggle to pick up new languages past a certain age and don't often see the need to if they don't have to.

We have 'uncontrolled' migration from Europe, maybe, but I've never seen that as an issue, as it's been proven that they contribute more than they take. We also have the freedom to move anywhere in Europe, something my parents took advantage of, my brothers have taken advantage of, my friends have taken advantage of along with millions of other Brits.

Investment in the country's infrastructure is all that's required.

 

Working in the EU, it's much more advantageous to speak English in nearly all industries than it is to learn Chinese.

You can also go home to visit your friends and relatives without going bankrupt.

 

The problem on this thread is the same as MP's face in parliament, the moment any view is taken to restrict immigration the 'open door brigade' start throwing insults such as 'racist' and 'little englanders' etc.
Whatever view is taken it must be discussed in a more open and honest fashion to allow progress. This is after all, the main bone of contention in the forthcoming referendum of EU membership.

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/115895

Anybody make any sense of why on Earth Osborne is proposing this change to tax returns???

 

it's a shame this nation failed to train up enough English Doctors , nurses , teachers ( I blame Thatcher and co ) ...... and as a football supporter it is a shame that English Football Clubs employ so few English players .
I fully except the fact that the English have always been a mongrel race , ruled over by foriegners ...ie the Normans , The Church , Royal family ..and now just about every nation under the sun ( foreign ownership of just about everything ) .
Any "racism" debate is now 30 years out of date ..England is now the most cosmopolitan country on the face of the globe ....and although I sort of hanker for the country of my youth . The world has moved on .
So i'm still a proud Englishman , I love our history , countryside / wildlife , climate and sense of humour ....But I'm also proud that so many fellow monkey's with differing skin tones want to share the place of my birth .

 

Well said... .and this is the way forward.....

That is not to say either that we need border controls.... quite a different argument.

 

Obviously to get revenue in quicker.

In January I have to pay half of 2015/16 tax due on dividends and the balance in June 2016. Long gone are the days of paying tax well in arrears. Some may say he is only treating the self employed and non earned income people like salaried employees that pay their tax monthly.

 

No, it's because you're spouting the BNP/UKIP leaflet propaganda.

You used that language, I asked you to justify yourself and you danced around it. 'Open door brigade'? You mean the people that accept that the Schengen agreement is a vital part of the European Union? Something most people are happy with when it suits their needs?

People always throw in random examples of things that 'scare' them about immigration. 'They speak funny' and 'my country wasn't like this when I was young' are the general theme, with the occasional 'in some places you can't even speak English' or ' X million people could turn up tomorrow'.

Do I think the UK can accept another, say, 5 million new inhabitants overnight? No. Is that going to happen? No. Most Europeans are happy in their own countries, a few move to better their lives or for the experience (see the UKIP Romanian scaremongering). Non-EU immigration is already restricted.

The Tories are the cause of the issue, slashing public spending to artificially create a problem. There is plenty of room on this island, jobs exist and immigration has been proved to have a positive financial impact.

I'd rather have a one-in, one-out policy with immigration, and we get to kick a kipper/racist out.

 

I remember when footballers were all called Alf and Bert as well. What gets me is that the 'foreign ownership of just about everything' began under Maggie yet it is the Tories who claim the moral high ground on patriotism. I also miss the English sense of humour, English pubs, villages with duckponds in the middle (with a sword in every pond !) and the countryside with its thousands of hedgerows (Germany and France, thanks to their disastrous agricultural policies don't have these). Unfortunately the present England does not celebrate all of its History but only one side of it ie. it celebrates Waterloo but not Peterloo - it does not celebrate the fact that the English were the first to have trade unions, or were the first to knock monarchy over the head.

 

- sorry - will change it - had not noticed my typo. I am not sure I should not change it to "anyone"
I think it is only through debates such as on here that we get a chance to be exposed to people with radically different views to our own. If certain people would simply do debating and not one line insults the rest of us could enjoy the rough and tumble of a good debate. Personally I do not even mind the troll factor as it amuses me - but I can understand how irritating it must be for anyone with diametrically opposed views.

 

I have just had to read through 3 pages of debate on immigration - blimey what an emotive subject. If it causes such heat on here where all of us support the same football team and most of us enjoy debating difficult subjects so long as we are not nasty with it then it is no surprise that in the population at large it is such a big issue.
Are we able to agree on any part of it. I carelessly stated that I thought EU immigrants came for a better standard of living. I was thinking of those from the new EU rather than the 12 of so countries that have been in for so long during which time immigration was not really a burning issue was it? I even said I was thinking wider than pure economics - so I guess improving your English counts for me as a better standard of living. I did not and do not see that as in any way wrong. I come back to my point - doesn't almost everyone who emigrates do so for some form of improvement? Those who come solely to learn English probably move on out again so across a period of years do not count in the figures of net immigration as they appear on both sides of the travel.
Whatever facts are produced - if people dislike and fear immigration then it is a problem. It matters not a jot which other countries have more immigrants if their citizens do not object. We have some very open minded people on this thread who would welcome and help any immigrant. However unless they are representative of the population as a whole then they must admit it is something that has to be debated and if there is a problem - that problem has to be solved. You can rant all you like about the Daily Mail, UKIP or the media - but if millions agree with or are swayed by them then their voice is relevant. The Tory Party seems to be split down the middle and 11.3 million voted for it in May - let's say half have doubts about immigration that is 5.7m; add in all UKIP 3.9m and even say a token 10% of Labour voters - 1m and you have 10.6 million people who need reassuring if they are not to vote to leave the EU - and that assumes all other voters are pro EU which they are not.
Those who deny immigration is a problem probably need to consider the excess of 10m voters who may not agree with them.

 

All very well Leo but we need facts and figures on this subject. If we don't have those then propaganda holds the day. How many immigrants are there from Eastern Europe ? How much do they take out of the system and how much do they give back ? Are they overproportionally liable to commit crimes of any sort ? How long are they actually staying ? I have heard it said that the average Pole's stay in the UK. is just over 2 years - before they are then replaced, I do not know if that is true. We also need to be clear about these themes and not allow them to run in to each other, which so often happens, so that refugees are one theme, Eastern European immigrants another, and eg. British born Moslems quite another.

 

You know - sometimes facts and figures are irrelevant. I have no idea how many immigrants are from Eastern Europe - but nor do the people who do not want one of them here. I suspect they pay in more than they take out - but I bet those who do not want eastern european immigration believe the opposite and will not be "confused by facts" (which they will not believe). Good luck in trying to get worried people to pigeon hole your groups into separate holes.
People need to believe they control their own country and can make laws for themselves. LIke it or not the Brits have been fairly Eurosceptic from day one. Nobody signed up for a european superstate and it is Germany and France who together have taken the EU ever further down that path. I honestly think they have gone too far. I do not think the UK wants that and unless there is fundamental reform then tinkering with immigration, benefits for non UK citizens etc are just the tip of an iceberg. Cameron is not trying for a root and branch change in the relationship the UK has with Europe and is fooling nobody with his 4 demands.

 

The Nasty Party are in full swing at the mo, this is a lovely story just before xmas...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/21/universal-credit-benefit-cuts-work-allowance

The Department for Work and Pensions has admitted that people will see cash losses to their in-work benefits under the new universal credit system and suggested they could make up for it by working an extra 200 hours a year.

In a new document on universal credit, published after parliament has broken up for Christmas, the department said people could “recoup the loss” caused by lower in-work benefits from April 2016 by taking on an extra three or four hours of work a week at the new “national living wage” of £7.20 an hour.

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, has repeatedly insisted that people on universal credit will not be worse off because of changes to in-work benefits announced at the summer budget.

He told parliament: “Those who are on universal credit at present will be fully supported through the flexible support fund, which will provide all the resources necessary to ensure that their situation remains exactly the same as it is today.”

But the government response to its independent advisers on the Social Security Advisory Committee (pdf) admits people are due to see losses from April.

It said: “We expect many claimants to respond to the changes to work allowances announced in the summer budget by actively seeking more work, and we will support them with this. For example, someone could recoup the loss from the work allowance changes by working three to four additional hours a week at the national living wage to which they are entitled.”

Owen Smith, the shadow work and pensions secretary, highlighted the difficulty of getting extra hours of work for many people.
“Working families set to lose thousands of pound next year because of cuts to universal credit will be livid at the Tories’ offhand suggestion that they just work more hours,” he said.

“It’s the measure of Iain Duncan Smith that he is trying to shift the blame for the cuts on to the victims. His Christmas message is work an extra 200 hours a year and you’ll be no worse off.

“A single mother working full-time with two children is set to be up to £3,000 worse off as a result of the cuts, while 2.6 million working families stand to lose an average of £1,600.”

An extra four hours a week at the new minimum wage of £7.20 an hour would make someone another £1,500 a year.

Universal credit has come under scrutiny since George Osborne, the chancellor, cancelled his billions of pounds of cuts to tax credits under political pressure from Labour and some of his own Conservative MPs.

The new universal credit system – which rolls six benefits into one monthly payment and replaces tax credits with work allowances – will come into force gradually over the next five to six years.

Labour has previously claimed the tax credit cuts are merely being delayed rather than cancelled because it says government figures show it is intending to cut £100m from the universal credit work allowance next year, £1.2bn the year after that, and then £2.2bn, £2.9bn and £3.2bn by 2020.

People who currently claim tax credits will be transferred to universal credit without any cash losses, but they will get the lower work allowance rate when their circumstances change.

New claimants will be also put on the new lower rate from April, and those who are already on universal credit will see their work allowance entitlements fall at that point. Around 500,000 will be on universal credit by April but it is not known how many of those claim the work allowance.

please log in to view this image

 

Very sensible move, far too many people qualify for in work benefits. It was a silly idea dreamt up by Gordon Brown. All it does is subsidise employers who should be paying more.
The welfare state was created to help the most unfortunate in hard times not to take more from workers in the form of tax only to dish out benefits to the majority.

We need much more reform to reduce the size of the state even further. People should take responsibility for their choices not always look to the state for handouts. How much are some dependants spending the state's cash on tattoos, booze and taxis to McDonalds?

 

I want in -work benefits to disappear entirely. People who are at work should be paid well enough to not need the state to prop them up. Labour's ridiculous scheme that ended up costing £30 billion per year was always going to have to end and would always end up with some losing.

Every other person in work pays for these benefits so let's see them wither away and have taxation reduce - to make everyone benefit.

Labour need to stop giving away other people's money - I know they want to seem generous but anyone can be generous with somebody else's money.

Get the economy right - get proper jobs and pay for anyone who wants to work and keep taxes low for all of us

 

But Leo.... how will zero hours contracts work.....? Many people have no option and often dont earn enough to get by....

 

They should try finding extra work. I worked on Saturdays in the early 70's for £5 a day doing landscape gardening. Certainly around Hertfordshire it is difficult to find any casual labour for household jobs.

 

The problem started when people earning very good salaries were still be able to claim additional monies from the state. If the scheme had been used to support those who really needed it rather than people quite able to get by it would have had some merit, but the way it was framed it was unaffordable for the country. It is always going to be difficult to remove something that people have been used to. How you do it is the problem now.

 

Your last sentence - sensible political debate? If people are on tax credits they are working. Who are you to judge what they spend it on?
Leo is right that employers should pay the going rate but until they do...