Ukip

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Central Office won't be happy with their little clone. EM has told you not to lie and use the race card against NF.

What is labours approach to immigration then?

When a foreign national is released from prison after serving a sentence for raping a twelve year old girl should he be deported ?

Neither of points 1 and 2 make sense.
The rapist should remain in prison in the country the offence occurred in - we already had that discussion so I don't know why you are using it in a reply to me again, bit pointless.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Where this goes awfully wrong for Labour is even they admit that the UK's labour force has been left unprotected, so the people who may have historically supported them have turned their backs on them and rightly so.

Not true, Milliband has stated that the previous Labour government's immigration policy was wrong and he has rightly pointed out that unscrupulous employers are using cheap foreign labour instead of Brits because minimum wage is being evaded and not being enforced properly. This is the same minimum wage the Tories voted against - if it wasn't in place there would be a lot more wage undercutting going on.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Order the unemployed to pick fruit and veg,give them an extra £5 per day,they win and we win because the fruit and veg will be cheaper to buy .

I read the last time Labour were in power they created 1 million jobs with 950,000 going to immigrants !,They sold this country down the river.For that reason I am out.

More of your made up figures I'm affraid.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

This is one big misrepresentation of the truth, in the area where I live the locals want their old jobs back in the fields and processing plants, sadly they have been undercut by immigrant labour and were forced onto the dole under Browns misplaced and misguided philosophy of having a welfare dependant Britain.
Immigration to my part of the World has brought nothing but misery, with the exception of the agencies that exploit the overseas labour brought in, and big business that benefits from having a cheap work force.

A philosophy of having a welfare dependant Britain - what nonsense, it is a safety net.

It was actually Thatcher that increased welfare dependants deliberately in two ways. Firstly by ending entire industries in order to reduce the power of the unions - decimating the incomes of entire communities. Secondly to mask the massive hike in unemployment they encouraged people to be moved onto incapacity benefit so they didn't appear on the unemployment figures. That is creating welfare claimants to fit in with philosophy and that is accepted as fact by political historians.

 

[rigsby]

Neither of points 1 and 2 make sense.
The rapist should remain in prison in the country the offence occurred in - we already had that discussion so I don't know why you are using it in a reply to me again, bit pointless.

If a foreign national comes to the UK as an adult and rapes a twelve year old girl and serves a sentence for that offence in a UK Prison. Upon his RELEASE, should he be automatically deported back to his country of birth ?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

If a foreign national comes to the UK as an adult and rapes a twelve year old girl and serves a sentence for that offence in a UK Prison. Upon his RELEASE, should he be automatically deported back to his country of birth ?

Yes, we did this already, get a new stick to try to beat me with rather than taking the same scenario and tweeking it a little each time. I know it upsets you but we agree - rapists not wanted here.

But this is the kind of thing Farage does, takes an extreme case and keeps bringing it up so it seems like the norm. That is not how to do politics and win your case which is why only 15% are willing to back him. If he approached with facts rather than scare stories he could engage in a more intelligent conversation and maybe win more people over. For some reason he doesn't want to do that.

 

[rigsby]

Yes, we did this already, get a new stick to try to beat me with rather than taking the same scenario and tweeking it a little each time. I know it upsets you but we agree - rapists not wanted here.

But this is the kind of thing Farage does, takes an extreme case and keeps bringing it up so it seems like the norm. That is not how to do politics and win your case which is why only 15% are willing to back him. If he approached with facts rather than scare stories he could engage in a more intelligent conversation and maybe win more people over. For some reason he doesn't want to do that.

So you actually agree with UKIP.

Someone with a prior conviction for rape should not be allowed in this country even if they are an EU citizen.
Someone who commits rape whilst in the UK should be deported after they have served their sentence.

Next question Ethnic minorities in Parliament, the BBC and more high profile Jobs. Do you think there should be more/less or are they fairly well represented at the moment

 

[callan]

A philosophy of having a welfare dependant Britain - what nonsense, it is a safety net.

It was actually Thatcher that increased welfare dependants deliberately in two ways. Firstly by ending entire industries in order to reduce the power of the unions - decimating the incomes of entire communities. Secondly to mask the massive hike in unemployment they encouraged people to be moved onto incapacity benefit so they didn't appear on the unemployment figures. That is creating welfare claimants to fit in with philosophy and that is accepted as fact by political historians.

For me to accept your argument would be to ignore two successive Labour governments that could and should have sorted out Welfare.
Instead we ended up with people on welfare better off than those in work in many cases.
Brown constantly tinkered whilst Blair procrastinated, the end result being a Tax credit system that favoured single mums over couples.
If Thatcher started it, then Brown compounded it.

 

[callan]

Not true, Milliband has stated that the previous Labour government's immigration policy was wrong and he has rightly pointed out that unscrupulous employers are using cheap foreign labour instead of Brits because minimum wage is being evaded and not being enforced properly. This is the same minimum wage the Tories voted against - if it wasn't in place there would be a lot more wage undercutting going on.

This is rather like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Saying sorry for Labours past incompetence and bringing in a higher minimum wage, won't get the jobs back for the local population where I live.
As I said earlier the Labour party (and I note you did not disagree) failed those whom they are supposed to represent.

 

[Napster]

A philosophy of having a welfare dependant Britain - what nonsense, it is a safety net.

It was actually Thatcher that increased welfare dependants deliberately in two ways. Firstly by ending entire industries in order to reduce the power of the unions - decimating the incomes of entire communities. Secondly to mask the massive hike in unemployment they encouraged people to be moved onto incapacity benefit so they didn't appear on the unemployment figures. That is creating welfare claimants to fit in with philosophy and that is accepted as fact by political historians.

Thatcher didnt end industries. She made them answerable to market forces. Ps Harold Wilson closed more mines than Maggie

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

For me to accept your argument would be to ignore two successive Labour governments that could and should have sorted out Welfare.
Instead we ended up with people on welfare better off than those in work in many cases.
Brown constantly tinkered whilst Blair procrastinated, the end result being a Tax credit system that favoured single mums over couples.
If Thatcher started it, then Brown compounded it.

I do have other things to do and will not be picking through every point of every post so I wouldn't assume I agree with something just because I haven't discuses it directly.


You were talking about welfare as a philosophy - I'm not saying there was no unemployment under Blair / Brown I'm just saying that was not part if a philosophy, it was a safety net. Thatcher used welfare as political philosophy for the reasons I gave.


You have to ask yourself what the welfare is there for and by making a comment on single mums you are reminding us why it is there - they are mothers of children and if they are being brought up by one parent then that child needs state support.


Higher minimum wage can bring jobs back for local people if the workforce is being chosen based on how low the employer can get away with paying wages. There are cases of large foreign work forces being technically paid minimum wage but having deductions made for housing from the employer - cooped up in a supposed hostel.
The Tories indulged in all sorts of scare tactics about the minimum wage which all turned out to be just that. It now needs to be reinforced and that will benefit the local workforce.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Thatcher didnt end industries. She made them answerable to market forces. Ps Harold Wilson closed more mines than Maggie

All sort of industries are subsidised - farming and the railways are the two that spring to mind - why was mining a source of generating power nationally suddenly deemed not worthy? You are not seriously suggesting that was not political?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Stop the benefits Culture. White Dee could do with a few weeks fruit picking. Would help the NHS long term as well.

There is no benefits culture.Far more is left with the government in unclaimed benefits (which people are actually entitled to) than what is fraudently claimed.

(I posted the figures a couple of years ago on here before you ask).

And don't get me started on the cost of tax evasion by firms and wealthy individuals either.Which of course adds up to far more than the amount which is fraudulenty claimed from the DHSS.

 

[rigsby]

There is no benefits culture.Far more is left with the government in unclaimed benefits (which people are actually entitled to) than what is fraudently claimed.

(I posted the figures a couple of years ago on here before you ask).

And don't get me started on the cost of tax evasion by firms and wealthy companies either.Which of course adds up to far more than the amount which is fraudulenty claimed from the DHSS.

You lose all credibility when you make statements like that. Hard working people who live and work here in the UK want a clamp down on both sets of p*** takers.... The financially wealthy and the benefit wealthy.

If the left ever grow a spine and dare speak the truth there would be no need for UKIP and Labour would win by a landslide.

 

[callan]

I do have other things to do and will not be picking through every point of every post so I wouldn't assume I agree with something just because I haven't discuses it directly.


You were talking about welfare as a philosophy - I'm not saying there was no unemployment under Blair / Brown I'm just saying that was not part if a philosophy, it was a safety net. Thatcher used welfare as political philosophy for the reasons I gave.


You have to ask yourself what the welfare is there for and by making a comment on single mums you are reminding us why it is there - they are mothers of children and if they are being brought up by one parent then that child needs state support.


Higher minimum wage can bring jobs back for local people if the workforce is being chosen based on how low the employer can get away with paying wages. There are cases of large foreign work forces being technically paid minimum wage but having deductions made for housing from the employer - cooped up in a supposed hostel.
The Tories indulged in all sorts of scare tactics about the minimum wage which all turned out to be just that. It now needs to be reinforced and that will benefit the local workforce.

A child in poverty needs support whether belonging to a single mother or not, under Labour the benefits system was weighted towards young single Mums.

Work became unaffordable to many based on the sheer scale of benefit entitlement.

Labour introduced the minimum wage back in 1998, if it didn't protect people then what on earth makes you think it will now?

All that happened was Foreign Labour arrived in droves and pushed down wages, conditions and rights for unskilled workers, with the locals left on benefits.

The final nail in the coffin being that the locals told time and time again, what a wonderful thing this is, as it is great for the economy, totally ignoring the fact that there are household economies that have suffered.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You lose all credibility when you make statements like that. Hard working people who live and work here in the UK want a clamp down on both sets of p*** takers.... The financially wealthy and the benefit wealthy.

If the left ever grow a spine and dare speak the truth there would be no need for UKIP and Labour would win by a landslide.

I doubt if I (or anyone on the left) ever had any credibilty with you in the first place.:smile:

A child in poverty needs support whether belonging to a single mother or not, under Labour the benefits system was weighted towards young single Mums.

Work became unaffordable to many based on the sheer scale of benefit entitlement.

Labour introduced the minimum wage back in 1998, if it didn't protect people then what on earth makes you think it will now?

All that happened was Foreign Labour arrived in droves and pushed down wages, conditions and rights for unskilled workers, with the locals left on benefits.

The final nail in the coffin being that the locals told time and time again, what a wonderful thing this is, as it is great for the economy, totally ignoring the fact that there are household economies that have suffered.

The minimum wage need to be raised, (at least), to the level of the living wage,(if not higher).

 

[callan]

I doubt if I (or anyone on the left) ever had any credibilty with you in the first place.:smile:



The minimum wage need to be raised, (at least), to the level of the living wage,(if not higher).

What needs to happen is more people taken out of tax.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

What needs to happen is more people taken out of tax.

That is also true.

 

[mrsblue]

You lose all credibility when you make statements like that. Hard working people who live and work here in the UK want a clamp down on both sets of p*** takers.... The financially wealthy and the benefit wealthy.

If the left ever grow a spine and dare speak the truth there would be no need for UKIP and Labour would win by a landslide.

Today's news,

27 year old single mother with 4 children has just moved into a brand new town house,the property valued around £330,000 has been carpeted throughout and she is the first to live there.The neighbours are in for a treat living next door to this family as they are and putting it nicely troublesome.This property is out of the reach of many yet the council are more than happy .

This event happened somewhere in Essex today.

Scandal.com.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Today's news,

27 year old single mother with 4 children has just moved into a brand new town house,the property valued around £330,000 has been carpeted throughout and she is the first to live there.The neighbours are in for a treat living next door to this family as they are and putting it nicely troublesome.This property is out of the reach of many yet the council are more than happy .

This event happened somewhere in Essex today.

Scandal.com.

Meanwhile, here's something that was actually reported on today.

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/12913243.___Councils_dumping_benefit_claimants_at_Thorney_Bay___/