Badlittlepup Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 An immigrant with a higher level education and the necessary skills to do the job? Yes. Because why would they bother training a current employee to do the job (as they used to) when they can just go for the cheaper option of bringing in an immigrant instead. Employers complain we don't have people with the necessary skills but we have people with the potential, just nobody who is prepared to train them any more because they don't want to spend the money training them. I used to work locally in an organisation which was trying to get exactly these people the training they needed and it was an uphill struggle but I'm not prepared to say where I worked so I won't be able to point you to the info, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 ...and import votes for them. True dat.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 No I'm not, read what I said. You've said it on many occasions every time immigration is being discussed. No it isn't solved by doing that, government actuaries in the 50's/60's miscalculated the pensions and social care burden of people retiring now (and in years to come), this meant that the system has become pay as you go, because there was never enough money in the pot to support those people, they're living MUCH longer than anticipated and retiring earlier. So we have a position where people in work are paying for this, not national insurance contributions paid by retirees. In years to come the imbalance will be HUGELY overweighted towards retirees. Encouraging a few to work longer, or compelling the majority to do so will not address the problem adequately.Solved by working longer before retirement. Not solved by mass immigration. How do we do that then? Work for benefits instead of sit on your arse for benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Ironing and forumming at the same time! I sooo admire you.. Because you didn't make a comment about my now edited spelling error i will forgive your rudeness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 EU migrants are not as free to enter the UK as certain other EU countries because the UK isn't a signatory of the schengen agreement, which is the gradual abolition of checks at borders. In reality this simply means they are required to show their passports on entry rather than any real resriction on entry or work in the UK. In fact workers from the ascenion states were allowed to work here without restriction elsewhere in the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Jay Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 ...and import votes for them. True dat.... This integued me, so I did a little Google and found this on Wikipedia: (CN and EU member) Since 1949, the United Kingdom, citizens of the Commonwealth countries and of the Republic of Ireland have had full voting rights at all levels and can be candidates, as they could before 1949 as British subjects; they are not regarded in law as foreigners.[2][8] For local, supralocal (Greater London Authority) and regional (Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland Assembly) elections, EU citizens, enjoy the same rights as Commonwealth citizens.[92] Under Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, local electors in Northern Ireland were either Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Republic of Ireland, the Representation of the People Act 2000 replaced that section by "a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union".[93] The Representation of the People Act 2000 also introduced a new system of electoral registration, with 2 electoral registers, one for parliamentary elections, one for local elections:[94] "A person is entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election in any constituency if on the date of the poll he (...)© is either a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland"; "A person is entitled to be registered in the register of parliamentary electors for any constituency or part of a constituency if on the relevant date he (...) © is either a qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland" "A person is entitled to vote as an elector at a local government election in any electoral area if on the date of the poll he (...)© is a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union"; "A person is entitled to be registered in the register of local government electors for any electoral area if on the relevant date he (...) © is a qualifying Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union" "In this section “qualifying Commonwealth citizen” means a Commonwealth citizen who either" (a) is not a person who requires leave under the [1971 c. 77.] Immigration Act 1971 to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or (b) is such a person but for the time being has (or is, by virtue of any enactment, to be treated as having) any description of such leave" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote#United_Kingdom The bit I've highlighted in bold stood out for me; surely its only EU citizens that have settled here perminently that can vote I would have thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 You've said it on many occasions every time immigration is being discussed. Solved by working longer before retirement. Not solved by mass immigration. Not neccessarily even working that much longer. I think what is needed is a more effective taxation system on those who have retired. When George Osborne brought in the so called 'Granny Tax' people complained and the papers showed images of down trodden poor pensioners being taxed on meagre pensions. In reality many pensioners nowadays are in fact wealthy. They took advantage of the good free education system in the sixties, cheap plentiful housing and are now living mortgage free on ample pensions. Rather than taxing the elderly being a case of poor old Granny not being able to buy meat to go with her two veg anymore it's far more a case of poor old Granny having one less cruise a year to go on. Effective taxation of the wealthy elderly really needs to be looked at as they are often the most wealthy in our society but they are no longer being taxed and are passing the burden for their care onto the younger generation rather than paying for it themselves because when they paid tax in their working lives they spent it on themselves and didn't save anything for their future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 This integued me, so I did a little Google and found this on Wikipedia: (CN and EU member) Since 1949, the United Kingdom, citizens of the Commonwealth countries and of the Republic of Ireland have had full voting rights at all levels and can be candidates, as they could before 1949 as British subjects; they are not regarded in law as foreigners.[2][8] For local, supralocal (Greater London Authority) and regional (Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland Assembly) elections, EU citizens, enjoy the same rights as Commonwealth citizens.[92] Under Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, local electors in Northern Ireland were either Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Republic of Ireland, the Representation of the People Act 2000 replaced that section by "a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union".[93] The Representation of the People Act 2000 also introduced a new system of electoral registration, with 2 electoral registers, one for parliamentary elections, one for local elections:[94] "A person is entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election in any constituency if on the date of the poll he (...)© is either a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland"; "A person is entitled to be registered in the register of parliamentary electors for any constituency or part of a constituency if on the relevant date he (...) © is either a qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland" "A person is entitled to vote as an elector at a local government election in any electoral area if on the date of the poll he (...)© is a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union"; "A person is entitled to be registered in the register of local government electors for any electoral area if on the relevant date he (...) © is a qualifying Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union" "In this section “qualifying Commonwealth citizen” means a Commonwealth citizen who either" (a) is not a person who requires leave under the [1971 c. 77.] Immigration Act 1971 to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or (b) is such a person but for the time being has (or is, by virtue of any enactment, to be treated as having) any description of such leave" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote#United_Kingdom The bit I've highlighted in bold stood out for me; surely its only EU citizens that have settled here perminently that can vote I would have thought. That only refers to EU citizens, not to commonwealth citizens or to migrants who take British citizenship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 So is Miliband agreeing with Nick Griffin now. If so they're either both racists or both right.. I somehow doubt Mr Milliband who is Jewish will want to be seen as agreeing with a hardline racist like Nick Griffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Some do and some don't, that hasn't changed other than, many are now healthier for longer, and the health service drags people’s lives on needlessly and in some cases against their will. Solved my getting them working and contributing for longer. Some do and some don't, many elderly live very active lives until the day they die, many have the support of their families and many could and would contribute into the system for much longer than they do, the elderly also provide free support to their younger families in the form of free child care. Some do and some don't, many continue to enjoy spending money through their retirement and many could continue working for much longer than they work. By employing the unemployed and reducing the population the public services would be in a much better position to cope, increasing the population and allowing people to sit on their arses being paid for doing nothing is a increasing the burden on the country without alleviating the problems that an older population may cause. Do you know what, if you're are going to disagree on these points as I've said earlier I'm fine with it. It's akin with arguing with a flat-earther. I'm interested that you keep putting forward, employ the unemployed as an answer. How do propose this'll work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.