To be prefectly honest Labour, Conservatives and the Lib Dems are ALL as bad as each other - all lie, promise the earth and do not deliver, fiddle and give a stuff about no one but themselves. No one of the three is better than the other. The sooner people realise this the better, as we can start having progressive politics.
... and then we can all live happily ever after and sing 'kumbaya' around the campfires every weekend.
Really, government has never been 'of and for the people', what makes you think it will be any time soon?
I have no idea what you mean by progressive politics, but I don't think you do either (apart from the obvious ).
Well, what sort of percentage do you think act like that then?
Not all, however I suspect a fair few in order to get into the land of milk (free housing) and honey (state handouts) known as the UK. Remove benefits from all foreigners make it known they won't get anything if they come here then see how many genuine people come here, then that would be a true indication.
Not all, however I suspect a fair few in order to get into the land of milk (free housing) and honey (state handouts) known as the UK. Remove benefits from all foreigners make it known they won't get anything if they come here then see how many genuine people come here, then that would be a true indication.
Asylum seekers actually recv practically nothing (about £5/day). They are not allowed to work, and they are not allowed to recv mainstream benefits. Most actually live in poverty. Yes, there have been a couple of high profile cases where the local council have c0cked up and housed them in high value houses, but they are rare to the extreme.
I think you are confusing asylum seekers with non-EU immigrants and EU migrants. I'm in no way saying we should increase the number of immigrants/AS's, but let's get some perspective here.
Asylum seekers actually recv practically nothing (about £5/day). They are not allowed to work, and they are not allowed to recv mainstream benefits. Most actually live in poverty. Yes, there have been a couple of high profile cases where the local council have c0cked up and housed them in high value houses, but they are rare to the extreme.
I think you are confusing asylum seekers with non-EU immigrants and EU migrants. I'm in no way saying we should increase the number of immigrants/AS's, but let's get some perspective here.
Other than the chance to con their way into staying in the country at the expense of those who have followed the legal path.
And their children recieve benefits don't they?
And what about healthcare, housing, access to education for their children ect.
The furtherest corner of europe, cut off by the sea and one of the most overcrowded, expensive places to live.
Hmmm.............. must be the weather that attracts them.:rolleyes:
I have no problem with people coming here, working hard and sending money "back home". It's no different to what many Brits do.
However, Harman really should be aware of how her comments would have been taken taken, especially when she included reference to benefit payments. It's not as if she doesn't have form for speaking without thinking.
I have no problem with people coming here, working hard and sending money "back home". It's no different to what many Brits do.
However, Harman really should be aware of how her comments would have been taken taken, especially when she included reference to benefit payments. It's not as if she doesn't have form for speaking without thinking.
Yes but she's saying that they should send their benefits abroad. In which case, if they have money to spare, they don't need the benefits.
Yes but she's saying that they should send their benefits abroad. In which case, if they have money to spare, they don't need the benefits.
What sorts of amounts are we talking about? If they are living on bread and water in order to send £10 a week home (which is a lot of money in some parts of the world) then I really don't have a problem with it. Or should be have to approve of everything those on benefits spend money on such as beer, **** and lottery tickets?
What would be wrong would be to encourage people to come to the UK in order to claim benefits and then send the money home.
What sorts of amounts are we talking about? If they are living on bread and water in order to send £10 a week home (which is a lot of money in some parts of the world) then I really don't have a problem with it. Or should be have to approve of everything those on benefits spend money on such as beer, **** and lottery tickets?
What would be wrong would be to encourage people to come to the UK in order to claim benefits and then send the money home.
The British tax payer should only fund foreign development through that budget. Benefits are meant only for people in this country, to be spent in this country.
The other thinks you mention are taxed and the money returns to the treasury.
Yes but she's saying that they should send their benefits abroad. In which case, if they have money to spare, they don't need the benefits.
Child benefit and tax credits aren't given to those that "need" them, look at the outcry over removing child benefit from higher rate tax payers. tax credits are to make work pay, not necessarily for need.
What people do with their own money is up to them but it is ridiculous for Harman to suggest benefits should be viewed as a source of international aid.
Her statement we must make sure the government adheres to its committment to ringfence overseas aid is amusing considering it wasn't her own party's position. Perhaps that's been added to the blank sheet of paper.
You can do both. Disclose say 15 hours work when you've done 50 (common practise in mini-cabbing).
Common practice, I hear, in lots of small businesses such as corner shops, restaurants and pubs. Staff are paid 15 hours via their payslip and any other hours are done cash in hand. Everyone's a winner (apart from the taxman).
Well, we've always known Hattie was a maniac, haven't we?
From her man-bashing style of feminism to her almost Communist Leftism, she's an absolute nut-job.
If she reckons that benefit-claiming immigrants are 'heroes' for sending part of their welfare money overseas to support their families, she is even more deranged than I thought!
So a family in Asia decide to send their brother to the UK, lounge about on the dole and generally milk the system and send his taxpayer-funded welfare payments back home. Great, an unofficial foreign aid scheme.
And if he can afford to do this, doesn't it mean our welfare system is doling out rather too much money?
If Hattie represents the train of thought within the Labour party, thank God they're in opposition, and let's hope they stay there:mad:
That problem is, immigrants are not breaking the link with the old country.
If you emigrate to the UK and make this your home, your British. The old country is just history.
Its a called integration, but sadly multiculturalism actively encourages the link to be maintained.
The reason why most immigrants came here from the late 40's onwards and what both Labour and Tory Governments used to say to appeal to them to come over was to send money back to their poor families! If countries like Pakistan/India and many African countries where fully develped like Europe then we wouldn't of had a fraction of the immigration. I can't beleive peeple haven't worked that out already!
If immigrants and their decesndants where not sending money back, then these countries would be a lot poorer, probably recieving more aid and could be much more unstable and making the world unstable.
The reason why most immigrants came here from the late 40's onwards and what both Labour and Tory Governments used to say to appeal to them to come over was to send money back to their poor families! If countries like Pakistan/India and many African countries where fully develped like Europe then we wouldn't of had a fraction of the immigration. I can't beleive peeple haven't worked that out already!
If immigrants and their decesndants where not sending money back, then these countries would be a lot poorer, probably recieving more aid and could be much more unstable and making the world unstable.
There's a lot of negative effects of people sending money back home in poor countries which are never talked about.
Property prices, cost of basic goods, disuasion for the young people to stay and work in their country of birth, inequality between those who have a relative working overseas and those who don't.
I've seen it and witnessed the effects in Morocco. It's short term gain that causes long term problems. The youngsters (men in particular) only have one aim and that is to get out and work in a rich country and then come home and flash their cash.
And it's not the truly poverty stricken that manage to get a relative working overseas. It's often the "middle class/upper working class", the ones all countries rely on for paying taxes and building a country.
It's always surprising to me how those in favour of large scale immigration have never done any studies about the negative effect on the countries they leave.
Just check out the high property prices and empty appartments that are so common in "nice" areas of poor countries which have a large number of overseas workers/immigrants.
Same problem in Wales/Cornwall here, but the effects are about fifty times worse.
Comments
... and then we can all live happily ever after and sing 'kumbaya' around the campfires every weekend.
Really, government has never been 'of and for the people', what makes you think it will be any time soon?
I have no idea what you mean by progressive politics, but I don't think you do either (apart from the obvious
So you don't know then?
Fair enough
Not all, however I suspect a fair few in order to get into the land of milk (free housing) and honey (state handouts) known as the UK. Remove benefits from all foreigners make it known they won't get anything if they come here then see how many genuine people come here, then that would be a true indication.
Asylum seekers actually recv practically nothing (about £5/day). They are not allowed to work, and they are not allowed to recv mainstream benefits. Most actually live in poverty. Yes, there have been a couple of high profile cases where the local council have c0cked up and housed them in high value houses, but they are rare to the extreme.
I think you are confusing asylum seekers with non-EU immigrants and EU migrants. I'm in no way saying we should increase the number of immigrants/AS's, but let's get some perspective here.
Other than the chance to con their way into staying in the country at the expense of those who have followed the legal path.
And their children recieve benefits don't they?
And what about healthcare, housing, access to education for their children ect.
The furtherest corner of europe, cut off by the sea and one of the most overcrowded, expensive places to live.
Hmmm.............. must be the weather that attracts them.:rolleyes:
However, Harman really should be aware of how her comments would have been taken taken, especially when she included reference to benefit payments. It's not as if she doesn't have form for speaking without thinking.
We have enough scroungers of our own without taking in thousands (millions?) from abroad.
Yes but she's saying that they should send their benefits abroad. In which case, if they have money to spare, they don't need the benefits.
What sorts of amounts are we talking about? If they are living on bread and water in order to send £10 a week home (which is a lot of money in some parts of the world) then I really don't have a problem with it. Or should be have to approve of everything those on benefits spend money on such as beer, **** and lottery tickets?
What would be wrong would be to encourage people to come to the UK in order to claim benefits and then send the money home.
The British tax payer should only fund foreign development through that budget. Benefits are meant only for people in this country, to be spent in this country.
The other thinks you mention are taxed and the money returns to the treasury.
Child benefit and tax credits aren't given to those that "need" them, look at the outcry over removing child benefit from higher rate tax payers. tax credits are to make work pay, not necessarily for need.
...and are probably working in the black economy.
Her statement we must make sure the government adheres to its committment to ringfence overseas aid is amusing considering it wasn't her own party's position. Perhaps that's been added to the blank sheet of paper.
Tricky to get tax credits if you don't pay tax.
You can do both. Disclose say 15 hours work when you've done 50 (common practise in mini-cabbing).
Common practice, I hear, in lots of small businesses such as corner shops, restaurants and pubs. Staff are paid 15 hours via their payslip and any other hours are done cash in hand. Everyone's a winner (apart from the taxman).
From her man-bashing style of feminism to her almost Communist Leftism, she's an absolute nut-job.
If she reckons that benefit-claiming immigrants are 'heroes' for sending part of their welfare money overseas to support their families, she is even more deranged than I thought!
So a family in Asia decide to send their brother to the UK, lounge about on the dole and generally milk the system and send his taxpayer-funded welfare payments back home. Great, an unofficial foreign aid scheme.
And if he can afford to do this, doesn't it mean our welfare system is doling out rather too much money?
If Hattie represents the train of thought within the Labour party, thank God they're in opposition, and let's hope they stay there:mad:
Along with the rest of the House of Commons:mad:
Although she is a bit Milfy!:eek::p;)
The reason why most immigrants came here from the late 40's onwards and what both Labour and Tory Governments used to say to appeal to them to come over was to send money back to their poor families! If countries like Pakistan/India and many African countries where fully develped like Europe then we wouldn't of had a fraction of the immigration. I can't beleive peeple haven't worked that out already!
If immigrants and their decesndants where not sending money back, then these countries would be a lot poorer, probably recieving more aid and could be much more unstable and making the world unstable.
There's a lot of negative effects of people sending money back home in poor countries which are never talked about.
Property prices, cost of basic goods, disuasion for the young people to stay and work in their country of birth, inequality between those who have a relative working overseas and those who don't.
I've seen it and witnessed the effects in Morocco. It's short term gain that causes long term problems. The youngsters (men in particular) only have one aim and that is to get out and work in a rich country and then come home and flash their cash.
And it's not the truly poverty stricken that manage to get a relative working overseas. It's often the "middle class/upper working class", the ones all countries rely on for paying taxes and building a country.
It's always surprising to me how those in favour of large scale immigration have never done any studies about the negative effect on the countries they leave.
Just check out the high property prices and empty appartments that are so common in "nice" areas of poor countries which have a large number of overseas workers/immigrants.
Same problem in Wales/Cornwall here, but the effects are about fifty times worse.
The left wing are the most pressing issue facing western democracies.
:rolleyes: