Opposition grows to benefit cap

[xjsdriver]

rover 623gsi said:

there's plenty of space all over the UK. Hardly any of it is built on.

So why many people feel the need to flock to London in droves causing the overcrowding then?

[NicD]

xjsdriver said:

+1 Haha!!! This is the point that none of these anti-immigrationists don't either get, or don't want to admit that the country has a population that is ageing faster than it is reproducing at some point in the near future (within the next 50 years according to estimates from NIESR) we will arrive at the point where there are more retired people than of working age.....

don't be absurd.

speaking for myself, I want CONTROLLED immigration.

That means we invite in persons that will be beneficial to the UK.

'your' ridiculous problem solved.

[nikaiyo2]

Countdown said:

All council housing is sold at a significant discount to market value (35% upwards). The ONLY people who benefit are those people that buy, and their nearest and dearest (who often encourage mummy/daddy to buy, on the hope that they get a nice little inheritance once they pass on or move into sheltered accommodation).

That is unquestionable, was that not done so the the people renting the property could afford to buy? The statement "sold at a loss"' is what I questioned...

[NicD]

nikaiyo2 said:

That is unquestionable, was that not done so the the people renting the property could afford to buy? The statement "sold at a loss"' is what I questioned...

you are ascribing a rather narrow meaning to "sold at a loss"'

i would take it to mean relative to market price.

[McWigglebum4th]

xjsdriver said:

+1 Haha!!! This is the point that none of these anti-immigrationists don't either get, or don't want to admit that the country has a population that is ageing faster than it is reproducing at some point in the near future (within the next 50 years according to estimates from NIESR) we will arrive at the point where there are more retired people than of working age.....

Ah ha

The typical lefty idiot

I say i want immigration controls so we don't end up increasing our quota of useless fkers

They read

I want everyone who isn't white turned into pet food and a massive 30 foot tall wall built around the coast to stop ANYONE from ever getting into the UK

[xjsdriver]

McWigglebum4th said:

Ah ha

The typical lefty idiot

I say i want immigration controls so we don't end up increasing our quota of useless fkers

They read

I want everyone who isn't white turned into pet food and a massive 30 foot tall wall built around the coast to stop ANYONE from ever getting into the UK

I didn't realise we had a useless fkers quota, I must look up the official figures - I guess because you have a UK passport, you managed to get excluded off the list. I have to grant you - you are one of the less nutty kippers, some of your more colourful party supporters are of the Enoch Powell "if they're black, send 'em back" mentality.....

[nikaiyo2]

xjsdriver said:

Employers on here: Who would you prefer worked for you? Some (native) mong who has no interest in putting in a hard day's work - or someone from outwith our shores with a work ethic? I know who I'd employ first of all.
That said, it's only a small percentage of those who wilfully refuse to find a job - the majority of the unemployed detest not being in work, but it seems to be more and more acceptable these days to tar them with the same brush.

I would rather have someone who does not live like a monk for 2 years then take allmost all the money I have paid them out of my local area. Hence I don't employ Eastern Europeans anymore unless they have been here for 5 years or more. It dawned on me at the start of the recession that I was paying £100'sK per year so people could save like hell and build houses etc at home.

To be honest, some native mongs, (arrogant ) as you so eloquently put it, have a terrible work ethic. I hope to god that you don't employ people with an attitude like that. Do you employ people?
Most don't, a lot have some bizarre sense of entitlement, yes some need mentoring and support but for gods sake we owe that support. We certainly owe them the chance of working more than someone from afar. Manage those "mongs" well and they will reward you with loyalty, performance, and put what you pay them back into the local economy.

I am not anti immigration and employ a number of people that are not UK born. Mainly India, they are here for the long haul.

Completely unmanaged immigration has reduced wages of that there is no doubt in my mind. I genuinely think in our area (southeast) we would be paying 30-50% more if we did not have a virtually limitless supply of cheap labour.

[Sticks.]

'Mong' - don't use the term unless you know what it means/how it's derived. And when you do, just don't.

Thank you

As you were.

[Mr GrimNasty]

I think a compulsory benefit cap is a good idea, ideally like a dunce's cap, but with a big 'B'. At least we'd know where our money was going.

[anonymous-user]

McWigglebum4th said:

Ah ha

The typical lefty idiot

I say i want immigration controls so we don't end up increasing our quota of useless fkers

They read

I want everyone who isn't white turned into pet food and a massive 30 foot tall wall built around the coast to stop ANYONE from ever getting into the UK

I trust as he was agreeing with me I am not one of your typical lefty idiots. I made no comment on the quality of immigrants you seem hell bent on letting in, simply that if you are not to be subsumed by your debts you need lower entitlements (which your politicians don't have the spine for) or higher GDP and the easiest way to achieve that is grow your population, even if it means a lower standard of living for everyone else. Which it does.

[PRTVR]

xjsdriver said:

fblm said:

Unfortunately your finances need more.

+1 Haha!!! This is the point that none of these anti-immigrationists don't either get, or don't want to admit that the country has a population that is ageing faster than it is reproducing at some point in the near future (within the next 50 years according to estimates from NIESR) we will arrive at the point where there are more retired people than of working age.....

But where do you stop? We will need more immigration when the present immigrants come to retirement, I was watching a programme, think it was click, were in Japan they were looking at robots to look after people due to their similar problem as the UK, in their population is ageing fast, there are more than one way of solving a problem, immigration just puts off the problem, while creating many others.

[NicD]

forget robots, when i am old I want to be serviced by young Asian style humanoid.

[sidicks]

xjsdriver said:

+1 Haha!!! This is the point that none of these anti-immigrationists don't either get, or don't want to admit that the country has a population that is ageing faster than it is reproducing at some point in the near future (within the next 50 years according to estimates from NIESR) we will arrive at the point where there are more retired people than of working age.....

Why is it that stupid people like you don't understand the difference between no immigration and controlled immigration?

[xjsdriver]

Sticks. said:

'Mong' - don't use the term unless you know what it means/how it's derived. And when you do, just don't.

Thank you

As you were.

Not a term I'd normally use - it's a phrase I picked up on here used by someone else to describe our own under achievers....

[Countdown]

nikaiyo2 said:

Countdown said:

All council housing is sold at a significant discount to market value (35% upwards). The ONLY people who benefit are those people that buy, and their nearest and dearest (who often encourage mummy/daddy to buy, on the hope that they get a nice little inheritance once they pass on or move into sheltered accommodation).

That is unquestionable, was that not done so the the people renting the property could afford to buy? The statement "sold at a loss"' is what I questioned...

It was a loss because the buyer paid less than market price. The buyer received a benefit/profit, the Council (and local taxpayers) made a loss on the sale of the house. Reducing housing stock also meant that more HB had to be paid to private landlords, thereby further increasing the cost to you and me.

[Ian Geary]

I can see the argument for a cap on benefits, but the practicalities do need some thought.

Welfare spend is going up because there are a lot of families in London in very expensive rental property, even with recent shifts to outer London.

What needs addressing is the cause, not just the symptom.

This policy will hit council services quite badly, through benefit arrears being written off and increases in homelessness.

My council is now seeing over 80 new families a week turn up for housing this year.

And whilst not quite slum landlords, the owners of hostels / temp accom rake it in.

But despite CMD & IDS saying otherwise, working in the capital just doesn't pay at the bottom end. Housing, childcare and comuting costs would burn through £2k in no time, assuming job seekers secured an average waged job rather than a zero hours sub minimum wage one (which are common in the care industry).

Ok, Somalis do the low paid city cleaning jobs 'cos they live at existence level, and the crumbs they have left still count for a lot back home.

But an indigenous couple with 2 kids? Why would they go through that? (ie longer day, more stress with less free time and money)?

Pride? Loyalty to the country? To make PH members feel better about life?

I don't think so..they would need a damn good reason, and frankly the coalition haven't got any, other than the benefits cap stick.

The county needs shifting away from a city led / housing boom style economy so that the it enables unemployed families to work and be better off.

Just so long as I get told first, so I can cash in my equity and re-train from my finance job!

Ian

[speedy_thrills]

Ian Geary said:

The county needs shifting away from a city led / housing boom style economy so that the it enables unemployed families to work and be better off.

Excellent post really, very thoughtful.

We're British though...we cling to that neoliberal idealism about economic value. What you are arguing for would require a planned economy to a greater extent and I just don't think people would see the cost of transition as worthwhile.

In a strange way we want to be our own little Howard Roarks and John Galts individually hacking away day-to-day seeking our own fortunes. This is so engrained people start to think of economic activity as a strange sort of zero sum game we are playing it has changed our views on subjects like immigration and social welfare. There has been a move away from looking at collective endeavors and planning as beneficial.

[NicD]

Ian Geary said:

My council is now seeing over 80 new families a week turn up for housing this year.

Ian

We as a people should not be kidding ourselves that it is sustainable to house these people in London.

What happened to 'on your bike'?

If asylum seekers, should be housed in affordable (to us tax payers) housing wherever this may be.
If have a strong local connection, perhaps in the limited social housing stock.

Otherwise, assisted to move to areas that need workers.

But of course, the key to this is regaining control of our borders, by controlling who enters and shutting off the spurious appeals so we can quickly get rid of those who should not be here.

UKIP.

[RYH64E]

Countdown said:

It was a loss because the buyer paid less than market price. The buyer received a benefit/profit, the Council (and local taxpayers) made a loss on the sale of the house. Reducing housing stock also meant that more HB had to be paid to private landlords, thereby further increasing the cost to you and me.

Not maximising the sale price isn't the same as making a loss, plenty of private companies make good profits by doing this.

I don't agree with the policy of selling of council houses, cheap or otherwise, but I very much doubt that they were sold for a loss. If the money raised had been used to build new council houses I would have supported the project, and if they used the planning laws to free up cheap land they could probably have built more houses than they sold.

[jonah35]

The issue we have is with london.mwe need to move jobs out of london to the north.

Less jobs in London means less demand for housing.

Parts of the North are just areas with most on benefits and they have no hope of breaking free.

Housing outside of London is much cheaper.

Set up government offices outside of London, more incentives for firms to invest in enterprise zones etc.

We should not just be relying on one city.