Tories commit to "full employment"

[alchresearch]

Why did you seem fit to mention this?

 

Because it's a long standing political plan, across all parties and a political point on a political thread, not like your lame name calling of Cameron on the Jesus Buddhist thread, which I guess is why you're trying this.

[Anna B]

What is the solution?

 

Was there the same problem before we started paying people not to work?

 

Yes, but then there was more work.

 

We seem to be undergoing a seismic shift in work and working prctices; what with the global economy, mechanisation, movement of labour etc, we need to be thinking differently. When one machine can do the job of 20 men, and work is going to the far east, I doubt there will ever be real full employment again.

[Mecky]

Because it's a long standing political plan, across all parties and a political point on a political thread, not like your lame name calling of Cameron on the Jesus Buddhist thread, which I guess is why you're trying this.

 

This thread is about what the tories said or rather Gideon

[Ruprecht1st]

We should stop trying to slow immigration. We should encourage talented people to come and work here, also we should have more cheap labour.

 

In order to manufacture and create wealth we need the right people. The indigenous population are, in the main, dependent, idle, thick and fat.They will never work, we should attempt to slow their breeding as they are clearly developing a subspecies.

 

More immigration that's the answer.

[taxman]

We should stop trying to slow immigration. We should encourage talented people to come and work here, also we should have more cheap labour.

 

In order to manufacture and create wealth we need the right people. The indigenous population are, in the main, dependent, idle, thick and fat.They will never work, we should attempt to slow their breeding as they are clearly developing a subspecies.

 

More immigration that's the answer.

 

Maybe some breeding programme or eugenics drive might be in order to get rid of the weak and useless from society.

 

I'm intrigued by your views and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Whoever you are this week

[El Cid]

We should stop trying to slow immigration. We should encourage talented people to come and work here, also we should have more cheap labour.

The indigenous population are, in the main, dependent, idle, thick and fat.They will never work, we should attempt to slow their breeding as they are clearly developing a subspecies.

 

More immigration that's the answer.

 

Wont the immigrants jut end up the same in a few years? And then we will have a worse housing shortage, and a full country.

[retep]

We should stop trying to slow immigration. We should encourage talented people to come and work here, also we should have more cheap labour.

 

In order to manufacture and create wealth we need the right people. The indigenous population are, in the main, dependent, idle, thick and fat.They will never work, we should attempt to slow their breeding as they are clearly developing a subspecies.

 

More immigration that's the answer.

 

Is it really,

 

"The campaign group said one of the major pull factors to the UK was the generous system of in-work benefits, such as tax credits.

 

A migrant with no dependants earning the minimum wage has their net income of around £184 a week boosted to £254 by tax credits and housing benefit.

 

In effect, State support makes up 28 per cent of their final take-home pay of £13,218 a year.

 

 

Immigration from the EU will add the equivalent of a city as big as Manchester (pictured) to the UK¿s population every four years

 

If the migrant has a partner and two children, the net weekly income rockets from £184 to £543. State handouts constitute 66 per cent of a total annual income of £28,241.

 

MigrationWatch said ministers should consider denying migrants access to in-work benefits and tax credits for the first five years they are here.

 

Under the current regime, a single worker on the minimum wage in the UK would be able to earn four-and-a-half times the income they could earn in Romania – or nine times as much for a family.

 

Any attempt to treat EU migrants differently to British citizens, who receive the same level of tax credits and other benefits, would spark a huge row with Brussels. The European Commission is already dragging Westminster to court over the so-called ‘right to reside’ test.

 

But the UK may hope to secure an ally in Germany, which last week signalled its own intention to take a tougher line on EU immigration."

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594681/Four-years-EU-migrants-coming-city-size-Manchester-Study-predicts-130-000-people-come-year-current-trends-continue.html#ixzz2xiCvzL1f

[Ruprecht1st]

Is it really,

 

"The campaign group said one of the major pull factors to the UK was the generous system of in-work benefits, such as tax credits.

 

A migrant with no dependants earning the minimum wage has their net income of around £184 a week boosted to £254 by tax credits and housing benefit.

 

In effect, State support makes up 28 per cent of their final take-home pay of £13,218 a year.

 

 

Immigration from the EU will add the equivalent of a city as big as Manchester (pictured) to the UK¿s population every four years

 

If the migrant has a partner and two children, the net weekly income rockets from £184 to £543. State handouts constitute 66 per cent of a total annual income of £28,241.

 

MigrationWatch said ministers should consider denying migrants access to in-work benefits and tax credits for the first five years they are here.

 

Under the current regime, a single worker on the minimum wage in the UK would be able to earn four-and-a-half times the income they could earn in Romania – or nine times as much for a family.

 

Any attempt to treat EU migrants differently to British citizens, who receive the same level of tax credits and other benefits, would spark a huge row with Brussels. The European Commission is already dragging Westminster to court over the so-called ‘right to reside’ test.

 

But the UK may hope to secure an ally in Germany, which last week signalled its own intention to take a tougher line on EU immigration."

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594681/Four-years-EU-migrants-coming-city-size-Manchester-Study-predicts-130-000-people-come-year-current-trends-continue.html#ixzz2xiCvzL1f

 

Your argument is flawed by the fact that the vast majority of immigrants come here to work, to better themselves, to contribute to the betterment of their families and their communities here and in their place of origin.

 

If they work, pay their taxes and at some time in the future need to avail themselves of the social welfare provision, I have no objection, they have contributed they should also be allowed to benefit.

 

I believe much of the rhetoric is based on non EU illegal immigration, a problem entirely caused by the Labour government in their failure to properly enforce existing legislation.

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2014 at 09:34 ----------

 

Maybe some breeding programme or eugenics drive might be in order to get rid of the weak and useless from society.

 

I'm intrigued by your views and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Whoever you are this week

 

Currently eugenics is out of fashion, its abuse by the Nazis put paid to any development beyond 1945.

 

If you go back to the basics of Eugenics and try to avoid its politicization there may be, at root some basis meriting further enquiry.

 

I recognize and acknowledge your defense of those in our society who are dependent and inadequate. This is entirely laudable, and I have considerable sympathy for such people who through a combination of the abuse of a well meaning but actually cruel social welfare system and possibly bad genes have ended up as they are.

 

None the less the national "stock" is weak. It needs sturdy immigrants to strengthen it.

[ivanava]

Your argument is flawed by the fact that the vast majority of immigrants come here to work, to better themselves, to contribute to the betterment of their families and their communities here and in their place of origin.

 

If they work, pay their taxes and at some time in the future need to avail themselves of the social welfare provision, I have no objection, they have contributed they should also be allowed to benefit.

 

I believe much of the rhetoric is based on non EU illegal immigration, a problem entirely caused by the Labour government in their failure to properly enforce existing legislation.

 

How does them being here to better themselves and not the British people, make his argument flawed?

[Ruprecht1st]

How does them being here to better themselves and not the British people, make his argument flawed?

 

My point is that the majority of immigrants want to work. I accept there is a problem with illegal immigrants, my comments are confined to legal immigration. I contrast this to those of the indigenous population who are, in fact unemployable.