ChatterBank1 min ago
Labour Supports The Government's Migrant Cap.
26 Answers
http://
Labour takes a U-Turn on immigration, could it be because they were beaten into fourth place in the recent Eastleigh by-election?
/// 'As Ed Miliband has said we know Labour got some things wrong on immigration in Government.
We did tackle many of the serious problems in the asylum system we inherited after 1997. We also brought in stronger border checks,' she will
say. ///
Labour had thirteen years to get it right, but what they did during that time has put us in the difficult position that this country now finds itself in.
Labour takes a U-Turn on immigration, could it be because they were beaten into fourth place in the recent Eastleigh by-election?
/// 'As Ed Miliband has said we know Labour got some things wrong on immigration in Government.
We did tackle many of the serious problems in the asylum system we inherited after 1997. We also brought in stronger border checks,' she will
say. ///
Labour had thirteen years to get it right, but what they did during that time has put us in the difficult position that this country now finds itself in.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“It's hindering me and colleagues getting the best people over here and I can't believe I'm alone”
I know it’s not an immediate solution to your company’s problems, Jake, but, since you have been explaining this to us for some time, has your company not investigated why “the best people” do not seem to be available from those already her? After all, we are constantly told that our education and university system is among the best in the world. So why do they not produce the best people?
But that apart, as Noth43 has explained very well, the problems do not stem from the relatively small number of skilled immigrants that come here. They stem from the huge numbers of unskilled or low skilled people who come here with no job and no premises to live in. We already have enough of those.
The notion of “no representation without taxation” (to paraphrase our colonial cousins famous slogan) is perfectly reasonable. It is quite clear that those people who draw monies from the Exchequer without, for good reason, having made any contributions are very likely to vote for lots more of the same. This is manifestly unfair upon those who are paying and could easily lead the country into even greater bankruptcy (if that state can be comparative). The idea can easily be implemented quite fairly by assessing the right to vote on a contributions based way with appropriate safeguards for sick and disabled people.
I know it’s not an immediate solution to your company’s problems, Jake, but, since you have been explaining this to us for some time, has your company not investigated why “the best people” do not seem to be available from those already her? After all, we are constantly told that our education and university system is among the best in the world. So why do they not produce the best people?
But that apart, as Noth43 has explained very well, the problems do not stem from the relatively small number of skilled immigrants that come here. They stem from the huge numbers of unskilled or low skilled people who come here with no job and no premises to live in. We already have enough of those.
The notion of “no representation without taxation” (to paraphrase our colonial cousins famous slogan) is perfectly reasonable. It is quite clear that those people who draw monies from the Exchequer without, for good reason, having made any contributions are very likely to vote for lots more of the same. This is manifestly unfair upon those who are paying and could easily lead the country into even greater bankruptcy (if that state can be comparative). The idea can easily be implemented quite fairly by assessing the right to vote on a contributions based way with appropriate safeguards for sick and disabled people.
/This is manifestly unfair upon those who are paying and could easily lead the country into even greater bankruptcy/
NJ your argument presupposes that the proportion of the electorate who are unemployed is sufficiently large to provide a mandate for policies leading to bankruptcy.
I would suggest that if a 'democratic' society has failed that many of its citizens economically then it is already headed for the civil disobedience, violent protest and overturning of law and order that removal of voting rights would simply hasten.
NJ your argument presupposes that the proportion of the electorate who are unemployed is sufficiently large to provide a mandate for policies leading to bankruptcy.
I would suggest that if a 'democratic' society has failed that many of its citizens economically then it is already headed for the civil disobedience, violent protest and overturning of law and order that removal of voting rights would simply hasten.
I have not seen AOG’s mention of “farage” being used as a derogatory term. However, it does not surprise me if it is.
I don’t understand why it is that some sections of the political spectrum have to take to personal insults as soon as a party or group begins to say things that they do not like or agree with. You don’t hear the term “to Brown” to describe taking a nation to the brink of bankruptcy; you don’t hear “a Blair” as a word for a war based on falsehoods and misleading information; You don’t hear of a “Bob Crow” industrial dispute when union leaders persuade their members to strike for extra pay simply for doing their job. So why does the leader of UKIP warrant having his name used in a derogatory fashion?
Anyone watching Question Time last night would have seen the vilification and downright insolence displayed towards UKIP and their representative on the panel. Words such as “disgusting”, “scaremongers”, and “racists” were regularly thrown about when some members of the audience attempted to get their points across. I’m used to politicians and football supporters behaving childishly. There’s really no need for the rest of us to follow suit.
I don’t understand why it is that some sections of the political spectrum have to take to personal insults as soon as a party or group begins to say things that they do not like or agree with. You don’t hear the term “to Brown” to describe taking a nation to the brink of bankruptcy; you don’t hear “a Blair” as a word for a war based on falsehoods and misleading information; You don’t hear of a “Bob Crow” industrial dispute when union leaders persuade their members to strike for extra pay simply for doing their job. So why does the leader of UKIP warrant having his name used in a derogatory fashion?
Anyone watching Question Time last night would have seen the vilification and downright insolence displayed towards UKIP and their representative on the panel. Words such as “disgusting”, “scaremongers”, and “racists” were regularly thrown about when some members of the audience attempted to get their points across. I’m used to politicians and football supporters behaving childishly. There’s really no need for the rest of us to follow suit.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.