Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
What Party Do You Trust To Cut Immigration?
41 Answers
http:// www.exp ress.co .uk/new s/polit ics/838 217/rut h-david son-con servati ve-case -for-im migrati on-fara ge
No one can deny that the main concern that forced the referendum was the problems of mass immigration, but it would seem that the majority of us are slowly being betrayed by all of the major parties.
Couldn't have anything to do with their fear of cutting off their regular supply of cheap labour, along with the continuousness lowering of our living standards?
No one can deny that the main concern that forced the referendum was the problems of mass immigration, but it would seem that the majority of us are slowly being betrayed by all of the major parties.
Couldn't have anything to do with their fear of cutting off their regular supply of cheap labour, along with the continuousness lowering of our living standards?
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.// Theresa May has confirmed that the Conservative pledge to cut net migration to the tens of thousands will be in her party’s manifesto, despite having missed the target after making the same promise in 2010 and 2015. //
The Conservatives keep promising big cuts in immigration and instead deliver big rises. But you keep voting for them even though there lies quickly become apparent.
Immigration is the scapegoat for Labour and Conservative economic failure. Brown and Osborne ruined the country, but instead of laying the blame rightly at this pair, some people prefer the blame immigrants, and let the guilty politicians off the hook.
The Conservatives keep promising big cuts in immigration and instead deliver big rises. But you keep voting for them even though there lies quickly become apparent.
Immigration is the scapegoat for Labour and Conservative economic failure. Brown and Osborne ruined the country, but instead of laying the blame rightly at this pair, some people prefer the blame immigrants, and let the guilty politicians off the hook.
Immigtants are blamed for most things:
Unemployment:
http:// www.lbc .co.uk/ radio/p resente rs/jame s-obrie n/james -right- blamed- immigra nts-une mployed -media/
Crime:
http:// www.exp ress.co .uk/new s/uk/46 885/Imm igrants -to-bla me-for- surge-i n-crime -says-p olice-c hief
he NHS crisis:
https:/ /www.th eguardi an.com/ comment isfree/ 2017/ja n/11/im migrant s-nhs-c risis-u nderfun ding-so cial-ca re-hosp itals
Unemployment:
http://
Crime:
http://
he NHS crisis:
https:/
None of them will do anything. They are so wrapped up in their London centric bubble where everything is 'diverse' they dont see or understand the wider publics concern. This applies to both parties. I think there is more than an element of truth in Gromits suggestion immigrants are a useful scapegoat for Government failings, although unfettered immigration is clearly not sustainable for the infrastructure either.
BTW, I often wonder at the use of "supply of cheap labour" when we have a minimum wage?
BTW, I often wonder at the use of "supply of cheap labour" when we have a minimum wage?
it's not the governments who want cheap labour, it's the voters. The British want cheap goods and high wages. Low-paid immigrants are the best way of squaring this particular circle. Labour encouraged it for this reason: to break the power of the unions. The Tories haven't tried to encourage it, they've just failed to lessen it despite their frequent promises to do so.
So far, then, Labour have implemented their policy much more successfully. The Tories have promised much and delivered nothing.
So far, then, Labour have implemented their policy much more successfully. The Tories have promised much and delivered nothing.
so would I, Talbot, but it was something I read (I think in a newspaper) a good 5-8 years or so ago. It might have come from one of the numerous memoirs from the Blair years, perhaps at second hand.
And it might of course not be true, wherever I read it. The reason I thought it plausible was because New Labour was eager to distance itself from the unions, and happy to encourage the production of goods at lower prices, to the policy would make sense.
And it might of course not be true, wherever I read it. The reason I thought it plausible was because New Labour was eager to distance itself from the unions, and happy to encourage the production of goods at lower prices, to the policy would make sense.
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.