David Cameron

[frasier]

It was brilliantly clever. It meant Cameron's web blog had ten times the amount of views than it did the day before. Nice one.

And this is exactly what turns people of politics; pathetic attempts at attacking each other. When will politicians in general learn this; they are supposed to be running the country, and are not employed to just attack one another, especially by bringing other people's wives and children into it. I realise all parties are guilty of this, but I find it ridiculous that politicians can say "why is turnout so low?" and yet they then turn around and launch pathetic attacks on one another.

 

[frasier]

True, it really wasn't very funny either. I mean, I'm a Conservative but I laugh at parodies of Conservatives if they're funny. His was just awful.

 

[Max]

I just hope for his sake he's in a safe seat because that kind of behaviour would certainly swing my vote if I was sitting on the fence.

 

[Nick W]

It might be a good idea to increase the mimimum wage to £6 / hour.

Trouble is:
1. Immigrants might still be paid less than £6, which doesn't solve the problem of dilution of labour.
2. It's too communist for some poeple.

Anyone else feel that the mimimun wage should go up?

 

[frasier]

No. I just don't think it would be beneficial to our economy, which is already losing its competitiveness.

 

[Mojo]

Isn't Commercial Tax stupidly low at something like 20% anyway?

 

[Alekseys]

David Cameron stinks of the shift towards middle-party politics. I can't stand the green-washing the Conservatives have been engaging in either.

Increasing the minimum wage would bring lots of families out of poverty, and boost the standard of living for so many people.

The fact is that we need as many immigrants as we can get, or otherwise my generation (~teenage now) will end up under tremendous pressure to pay the taxes to fund all the old peoples' pensions.

 

[frasier]

David Cameron stinks of the shift towards middle-party politics.

If the people didn't like it, it wouldn't be happening. It's called democracy.

The fact is that we need as many immigrants as we can get, or otherwise my generation (~teenage now) will end up under tremendous pressure to pay the taxes to fund all the old peoples' pensions.

I don't really see that as a fact. If it were you'd be able to prove it, which you did not, and I don't think you will be able to either. The real fact is there is certainly an issue with letting every immigrant in - what if he/she doesn't help society, but in fact hinders it, what if he/she is being paid for by our tax system, but in fact is making us pay for them? In this case, in what way are they helping our generation pay for anything? The answer is that they wouldn't be. See the issue?

Obviously, we need some immigration. But it is no way "a fact" that mass immigration helps us economically, or indeed socially, at all.

Increasing the minimum wage would bring lots of families out of poverty, and boost the standard of living for so many people.

Would it? Since the minimum wage has been introduced 750,000 more people are in poverty than they were before - and in fact the gap between the rich and poor has increased.
http://www.uk.toucan.com/news/17992397/

Certainly, I do think the minimum wage was a good thing in the sense that it has helped child poverty quite a bit - but, at the same time, increasing the wage may not have the desired effect; simply because it may very well harm our economy, which tends to effect the poorest of us.

 

[Alekseys]

If the birth rate continues as it is set to, there will not be enough workforce to support the pensions of the pensioners. The rich-poor divide is increasing all the time, true, so increasing the minimum wage is a brilliant way of helping the people which poverty hits the hardest.

 

[frasier]

If the birth rate continues as it is set to, there will not be enough workforce to support the pensions of the pensioners. The rich-poor divide is increasing all the time, true, so increasing the minimum wage is a brilliant way of helping the people which poverty hits the hardest.

This wasn't my argument at all. First of all - I accept we need some immigration. What I am saying is that some immigrants are not going to help us support more pensioners. What do we do about those immigrants? Your argument is actually a good one to be used for putting immigration limits in place.

Secondly, my point on the minimum wage is that since it was introduced the divide has gone up - so why would making it bigger necessarily mean the gap will get smaller? There are other factors in play here.

 

[Bighat]

David Cameron stinks of the shift towards middle-party politics. I can't stand the green-washing the Conservatives have been engaging in either.

Increasing the minimum wage would bring lots of families out of poverty, and boost the standard of living for so many people.

The fact is that we need as many immigrants as we can get, or otherwise my generation (~teenage now) will end up under tremendous pressure to pay the taxes to fund all the old peoples' pensions.

Err.... and who do you think paid all the taxes to fund YOUR education, the Child Benefit your mother has, and may still is receiving, all the medical costs of your birth and doctor's fees since then? Also, if you are under 18 and live in London, the FREE public transport you enjoy?

 

[Alekseys]

Some people claim disability benefits or tax credits for no reason at all, and they're native of this country! There's no way of screening for immigrants who might not work, and as you know, the current system is an absolute shambles. In addition, what effect does limiting the number of immigrants have? It means illegal immigrants.

 

[Bighat]

This wasn't my argument at all. First of all - I accept we need some immigration. What I am saying is that some immigrants are not going to help us support more pensioners. What do we do about those immigrants? Your argument is actually a good one to be used for putting immigration limits in place.

Secondly, my point on the minimum wage is that since it was introduced the divide has gone up - so why would making it bigger necessarily mean the gap will get smaller? There are other factors in play here.

There is a simple way to deal with immigration. Remove ALL barriers, but make it clear that NO MEDICAL OR OTHER STATE BENEFITS will be available to the immigant or his dependants unless or until he has a five year long contribution record, or has lodged a sum of money equivalent to that.

Very effective, very fair. If they need assistance during that period, arrange IMMEDIATE repatriation.

 

[frasier]

Some people claim disability benefits or tax credits for no reason at all, and they're native of this country!

In what way is this an argument for or against immigration. I am arguing that we don't want more people who would do this - not that our own population don't do it.

There's no way of screening for immigrants who might not work, and as you know, the current system is an absolute shambles.

There isn't? Someone tell that to Austrailia, and indeed most other European countries. A lot of them have a tighter immigration policy than us - are they in crisis? As for the current system; just because that doesn't work well doesn't mean that another system will not.

In addition, what effect does limiting the number of immigrants have? It means illegal immigrants.

Yes, by default it does. Why this is an argument against having limits on immigrants? Surely those who are called illegal immigrants would still come here; but they just wouldn't be called illegal immigrants? It's hardly a very forceful argument is it?

 

[Alekseys]

Err.... and who do you think paid all the taxes to fund YOUR education, the Child Benefit your mother has, and may still is receiving, all the medical costs of your birth and doctor's fees since then? Also, if you are under 18 and live in London, the FREE public transport you enjoy?

You've surely missed my point, I'm saying that if we put heavy limits on immigration the future workforce will be put under massive pressure. We are going to have too many OAPs for our future workforce to support, without the help of millions of migrant workers.

Due to increasing life expectancy and falling birth rates, there are not enough workers to support pensioners: in 1990, there was one pensioner for every four workers in the UK, but this is projected to climb to nearly two pensioners for every five workers by 2030.

----

I don't think there is an immigration crisis. I believe it's an idea spat out by jingoist conservatives who believe that migrant workers will drag the economy to rock bottom. Anyway, you mean 'tighter policy', as in only allowing people with lots of qualifications in? That closes the door on whole families immigrating and is discriminatory.

 

[frasier]

I don't think there is an immigration crisis. I believe it's an idea spat out by jingoist conservatives who believe that migrant workers will drag the economy to rock bottom. Anyway, you mean 'tighter policy', as in only allowing people with lots of qualifications in?

Not necessarily; I would like to see a points system introduced, like the one in Australia. It would help bring in more qualified people, but there would still be room for others who don't have qualifications, or have few qualifications. Obviously exceptions would be made for those suffering real political percecution.

That closes the door on whole families immigrating and is discriminatory.

Yes. So is having ramps for wheelchair users, so is accepting people into a university based on their grades - doesn't mean it would necessarily be a bad thing.

I don't think there is an immigration crisis. I believe it's an idea spat out by jingoist conservatives who believe that migrant workers will drag the economy to rock bottom.

So you don't think we will run out of room eventually, and that many people will soon not be able to afford houses in places like the South East due to the fact there are so many people living there?

 

[Tom B]

Very effective, very fair. If they need assistance during that period, arrange IMMEDIATE repatriation.

However is that humane?

Imagine someone coming to the UK, working hard in a relatively low paid job (which is only likely to be available because the native English think they're too good to be cleaning toilets / shoveling chips / driving buses), paying their fair share of their wages towards the welfare state. Then something happens - they contract a medical condition, lets say - should they be thrown out the country because of that? They've been making what contribution they can, and no doubt intend to continue doing so.

So you don't think we will run out of room eventually, and that many people will soon not be able to afford houses in places like the South East due to the fact there are so many people living there?

That relies on extrapolation i.e. population will continue to rise at a constant rate. However the problem with extrapolation is that YOU DO NOT KNOW what will happen - for all we know the flow of immigrants may tail off tomorrow.

 

[Carlz]

I agree with Tom B and Alekseys, it's absurd, Frasier and Bighat seem to assume that all immigrants come to this country to exploit the free healthcare - it just isn't true.

 

[Bighat]

You've surely missed my point, I'm saying that if we put heavy limits on immigration the future workforce will be put under massive pressure. We are going to have too many OAPs for our future workforce to support, without the help of millions of migrant workers.



----

I don't think there is an immigration crisis. I believe it's an idea spat out by jingoist conservatives who believe that migrant workers will drag the economy to rock bottom. Anyway, you mean 'tighter policy', as in only allowing people with lots of qualifications in? That closes the door on whole families immigrating and is discriminatory.

No, it is YOU who miss the point, in BOTH your quotes. If you re-read what was said, it clearly states thet ALL quotas should be ABOLISHED, but it should be made clear that NO STATE AID would be forthcoming UNTIL a level of contributions (or a deposit in lieu) has been made.

As for restricting immigration to 'professional' people, bear in mind that it was LONDON TRANSPORT opening a recruitment office in Kingston, JAMAICA in the 1950's that started post war migration to the UK. They were recruiting bus conductors!

Much more recently, First have sent a double deck bus to POLAND I believe. They too are after staff, as bus drivers, not brain surgeons, rocket scientists, doctors or dentists (of which there are MANY here already from that country). Remember too who built our canal system, and our railways a little under 200 years ago, Irish 'navvies' (short for 'navigators', because of the navigation canals!).

 

[afterburner]

Not necessarily; I would like to see a points system introduced, like the one in Australia. It would help bring in more qualified people, but there would still be room for others who don't have qualifications, or have few qualifications. Obviously exceptions would be made for those suffering real political percecution.

There IS a points system for getting into the UK - I am a foreigner and it's how I managed to come here. It's quite expensive and a long tedious process to go through to get entry.

However, as far as your point goes, it is only one of many ways that people are able to come to the UK. And of course EU residents need not apply...

 

[frasier]

I agree with Tom B and Alekseys, it's absurd, Frasier and Bighat seem to assume that all immigrants come to this country to exploit the free healthcare - it just isn't true.

Please quote me on this. If you can't then I expect a retraction of that remark.

There IS a points system for getting into the UK - I am a foreigner and it's how I managed to come here. It's quite expensive and a long tedious process to go through to get entry.

But I am pretty sure it is not like the one that Australia empolys.

That relies on extrapolation i.e. population will continue to rise at a constant rate. However the problem with extrapolation is that YOU DO NOT KNOW what will happen - for all we know the flow of immigrants may tail off tomorrow.

True, but it is a reasonable assumption nonetheless.

 

[Alekseys]

Sorry for any confusion Bighat, I wasn't addressing you back there, I was addressing Frasier about the 'tighter policy' (Australian-style points system) idea he's batting about.

As for what you say, unlimited immigration but cutting off healthcare for immigrants would solve the problem of people coming to leech off the NHS, but I echo Tom B when I say this - it certainly would not be humane for the majority of immigrants who injured themselves while working during the period when they had no right to state aid/healthcare.

---

Frasier, as afterburner pointed out, the points system in the UK is a tedious, expensive process as it is. If that is so, then I imagine it makes the idea of leeching off the NHS much less lucrative to outsiders. Certainly, an Australian-style points system might further help deter the fringe element who want to get free treatment/benefits from this country, while giving nothing back, but the changes would no doubt introduce another layer of bureaucracy to our current system, costing the taxpayer. The immigration process would, I assume, also be made longer, more tedious and bar some people with no intention other than of working honestly in the UK.


I think Carlz makes a fair point, the adverse effects on hardworking immigrants (i.e. them not being able to get healthcare on the NHS despite doing honest work etc) would probably outweigh the benefits of stopping frauds leeching benefits. Anyway, if you have proof that immigrants actually leech off the NHS on any sort of measurable scale then please present this evidence.

 

[frasier]

Frasier, as afterburner pointed out, the points system in the UK is a tedious, expensive process as it is. If that is so, then I imagine it makes the idea of leeching off the NHS much less lucrative to outsiders. Certainly, an Australian-style points system might further help deter the fringe element who want to get free treatment/benefits from this country, while giving nothing back, but the changes would no doubt introduce another layer of bureaucracy to our current system, costing the taxpayer. The immigration process would, I assume, also be made longer, more tedious and bar some people with no intention other than of working honestly in the UK.

There is no evidence that the system would be bureaucratic. You might want it to be more bureaucratic as you don't like the idea - but that doesn't mean it will be. It would simply replace the failing system we have now. It does not have to be more or less bureaucratic than that system; it depends on how it is implemented.

Anyway, if you have proof that immigrants actually leech off the NHS on any sort of measurable scale then please present this evidence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2006/10/02/nhs01.xml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3351889.stm

Is £200 million a year measurable?

 

[Max]

Personally Fraiser I think you need to describe this Australian points system in a bit more detail, as you haven't really shown how it is different to ours!

 

[frasier]

Oh right, I thought that you'd know what I was talking about:

Here is the information you seek:

http://www.workpermit.com/australia/skilled.htm