Anna B Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 One thing I will never forgive the Labour party for is the way they closed down all discussion on immigration whilest it was happening. Anybody who even brought the subject up was immediately branded a racist. People lost their jobs just for stating the obvious, remember teacher Ray Honeyford, and that woman Gordon Brown branded a bigot? In a country that prides itself on free speach, that is a disgrace. A mealy mouthed, two faced, and too late apology from Mr.Milliband in no way begins to make up for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 A good rule for entering into an argument is to do so armed with some facts and figures. Especially if you make such a confrontational post. The NHS is clearly under strain, but that is as much to do with the ever expanding range of medical treatments as to the increase in population. Demand for medical services will always outstrip supply. I reject your assertion. "If we did not have an estimated two and a half million "incommers" over the BLIAR years, the medical services would be in a much better situation, therefore I reject YOUR assertion." Middle of summer. Reservoir levels 98%. Hardly overstretched. I reject your assertion. "One month ago before this quite strange weather we have had, record rainfall in June, there were hose pipe bans in operation throughout the Country. Therefore I reject your assertion." The entire world is struggling with this. People need energy wherever they live. There is a finite amount. I reject your assertion. "No, take away the millions of incommers who use energy, and our energy situation would be in a better position - it's just common sense, fewer users - less demand. Therefore I reject your assertion." ,Nope. Sorry. We import roughly 40% of our food. You could have checked this quite easily, instead of making stuff up. Ho hum. "I agree, approx 40%. But if we had much less need {reduced population} we would require less imports - just a mathematical deduction. Therefore I reject your assertion." Do I win a prize? "Yes, for having your head buried in the sand." Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Believe me, I'm not of the lefty persuasion, but I bet you would have a hard time backing that up. There are an awful lot of white underclass getting money too you know. And incidentally many of the services that used to be available under the last government which were exclusive e.g. Asian only diabetes or heart disease management classes and similar, were the first thing to be cut by this government so don't exist anymore. Based on the 2010 "Is Britain Fair" report by the EHRC. Unemployment among ethnic minorities costs the economy almost £8.6 billion a year in benefits and lost revenue from taxes. Half of Muslim men and three quarters of Muslim women are unemployed. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8054403/Britains-coping-classes-at-breaking-point.html Interpret the stats from here how you will: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/11/work_benefits_and_ethnicity.html While those of Indian origin, for instance, get 8% of their income from the state in the form of benefits, state pension and tax credits, those describing their ethnicity as Pakistani or Bangladeshi receive 29% of their income in various forms of state aid. White citizens receive 15% of their income from social security, tax credits and the state pension. People of Chinese ethnicity get 10%. Those of mixed ethnicity get 13%, while those from black ethnic groups receive between 17% and 18%. The way I read it is that some ethnic groups are proportionately less of a burden on the state than the native white population. The Pakistani and Bangladeshi population however are almost twice the burden of the native white population. Take out pensioners (ie people who would not normally be considered part of the workforce) and the figures look worse. Personally if I was a policy maker, it would appear to make sense that if we need immigrants to fill a skills or labour gap, workers from China and India should be given preference over say workers from Pakistan and Bangladesh as they and their families are less likely to be a burden on the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 As I have said before, the speech he made yesterday basically said that although he doesn't think people who are concerned about immigration are racist and he understands their concerns he is going to scrap policies which impose caps on it. Basically he was announcing more immigration. I didn't hear the speech in detail, but if that's what he's proposing he'd be absolutely wrong to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Based on the 2010 "Is Britain Fair" report by the EHRC. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8054403/Britains-coping-classes-at-breaking-point.html Interpret the stats from here how you will: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/11/work_benefits_and_ethnicity.html The way I read it is that some ethnic groups are proportionately less of a burden on the state than the native white population. The Pakistani and Bangladeshi population however are almost twice the burden of the native white population. Take out pensioners (ie people who would not normally be considered part of the workforce) and the figures look worse. Personally if I was a policy maker, it would appear to make sense that if we need immigrants to fill a skills or labour gap, workers from China and India should be given preference over say workers from Pakistan and Bangladesh as they and their families are less likely to be a burden on the state. It's time the members of the UK political establishment came clean and re-framed the immigration debate to include the word England. It's England that's taken more >95% of all immigrants. t's England that has been changed beyond all recognition by mass immigration. It's England that's already the most densely populated 'nation' in Europe. And it's England that has the chronic housing crisis and its NHS and other services on the brink. England needs its own immigration policy separate from the so called 'UK'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 It's time the members of the UK political establishment came clean and re-framed the immigration debate to include the word England. It's England that's taken more >95% of all immigrants. t's England that has been changed beyond all recognition by mass immigration. It's England that's already the most densely populated 'nation' in Europe. And it's England that has the chronic housing crisis and its NHS and other services on the brink. England needs its own immigration policy separate from the so called 'UK'. Who and what will decide this figure, and it legitimacy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Even though the country spends more on pensions than any other sector of government spending, including welfare? But most of them have contributed throughout their life whilst some younger people will spend their life taking from the system and contributing nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_W Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 One thing I will never forgive the Labour party for is the way they closed down all discussion on immigration whilest it was happening. Anybody who even brought the subject up was immediately branded a racist. People lost their jobs just for stating the obvious, remember teacher Ray Honeyford, and that woman Gordon Brown branded a bigot? In a country that prides itself on free speach, that is a disgrace. A mealy mouthed, two faced, and too late apology from Mr.Milliband in no way begins to make up for that. I agree wholeheartedly, the Labour party has lost so many voters that I know because of it's uncontrolled immigration policy, and I'm talking about working class factory workers, builders, tradesmen etc ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 It's time the members of the UK political establishment came clean and re-framed the immigration debate to include the word England. It's England that's taken more >95% of all immigrants. t's England that has been changed beyond all recognition by mass immigration. It's England that's already the most densely populated 'nation' in Europe. And it's England that has the chronic housing crisis and its NHS and other services on the brink. England needs its own immigration policy separate from the so called 'UK'. Well said that man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 When the fabric of a Country is damaged. Hospitals cannot cope, housing shortage, schools overun by foreign children, parts of large Towns/Cities which are no go areas - these are just for starters. Angel. I think you are reasonable in saying that the country is "full" once the public services and infrastructure have reached 100% capacity. Labour poured people into the country and didn't expand basic services by nearly as much. Labour massively pumped up the cost of the public sector but actually created very little extra capacity. The idea that we can just keep pouring people into the country until every scrap of land has been covered up is as laughable as Labour's immigration policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.