Tory's new immigration policy - discuss
Discussion
The problem with government sponsored "affordable housing" is that the perception with the existing owners, who have struggled to make it on their own, is that, (a) the others are getting an unfair advantage, and (b) it might devalue their own property by proxy, as it were. The policy might cut both ways at the ballot box.
>> Edited by motco on Monday 24th January 10:07
>> Edited by motco on Monday 24th January 10:07
...and the Tory party is toast!
I'm tempted to remark that they should be concentrating on the fundamental issues of economic deregulation and lowering taxation but just as any debate on pulling up the drawerbridge is likely to incur the wrath of The Trevor Philips Disestablishment Party & Co, amidst cries of 'fascist,' etc, so, equally, will any common sense policy of giving the people their hard earned back invoke the virulent lamentation of the collarless sweater wearers.
Which means the British economy will soon be as resilient as the melted butter to go with it!
I'm tempted to remark that they should be concentrating on the fundamental issues of economic deregulation and lowering taxation but just as any debate on pulling up the drawerbridge is likely to incur the wrath of The Trevor Philips Disestablishment Party & Co, amidst cries of 'fascist,' etc, so, equally, will any common sense policy of giving the people their hard earned back invoke the virulent lamentation of the collarless sweater wearers.
Which means the British economy will soon be as resilient as the melted butter to go with it!
As B Liar seems to be hanging his hat on how strong the economy is - from his lofty viewpoint anyway, not mine! - and glossing over everything else he has made a mess of, the Tories need to concentrate on those policies that remind the voters of their concerns, immigration levels and asylum seekers being just two of them.
Who pays Michael Howard anyway? The Labour Party?
There was an "issue" a little bit ago. Well, what I shoudl say is that the media whipped themselves into a frenzy about immigration. But in reality its something that doesnt affect the majority of voters so its a bit of a non-issue. Not suggesting that its not a problem which needs addressing, but it seems that Howard is about 6-12 months late on this particular issue..... everyone has moved on....
In principle the restriction of immigration isnt a bad idea. The problem is getting a balance, which I feel that neither Labour or the Conservatives have managed to reach....
Is it me or is Howard trying his best to loose the next election? I am getting worried that he is simply just not trying - or trying to look like a plonker....
There was an "issue" a little bit ago. Well, what I shoudl say is that the media whipped themselves into a frenzy about immigration. But in reality its something that doesnt affect the majority of voters so its a bit of a non-issue. Not suggesting that its not a problem which needs addressing, but it seems that Howard is about 6-12 months late on this particular issue..... everyone has moved on....
In principle the restriction of immigration isnt a bad idea. The problem is getting a balance, which I feel that neither Labour or the Conservatives have managed to reach....
Is it me or is Howard trying his best to loose the next election? I am getting worried that he is simply just not trying - or trying to look like a plonker....
derestrictor said:
...and the Tory party is toast!
I'm tempted to remark that they should be concentrating on the fundamental issues of economic deregulation and lowering taxation but just as any debate on pulling up the drawerbridge is likely to incur the wrath of The Trevor Philips Disestablishment Party & Co, amidst cries of 'fascist,' etc, so, equally, will any common sense policy of giving the people their hard earned back invoke the virulent lamentation of the collarless sweater wearers.
Which means the British economy will soon be as resilient as the melted butter to go with it!
Did you see Dimbleby on Sunday?
Wrong thinking do gooder type
'Taxation is something we are prepared to put up with if the services improve'
Now there speaks a man who isnt crippled with the fiscal plague.
When are people going to realise that given the choice between a misguided man, a liar and an alcoholic its not the pisshead or the shister that they should be choosing?
The policy announced seems very sensible.
A maximum number of immigrants each year- a proposed limit of 100,000 seems very sensible- so we can import the skilled workers we need while not putting too much pressure on public services and housing.
They need to withdraw from the Convention on human rights not because of the convention itself-but how judges here have interpreted it-basically that no-one should be deported or deprived of benefits.
Other countries such as australia operate far more sensible immigration policies.
It is not racism-but common sense
A maximum number of immigrants each year- a proposed limit of 100,000 seems very sensible- so we can import the skilled workers we need while not putting too much pressure on public services and housing.
They need to withdraw from the Convention on human rights not because of the convention itself-but how judges here have interpreted it-basically that no-one should be deported or deprived of benefits.
Other countries such as australia operate far more sensible immigration policies.
It is not racism-but common sense
immigration: discuss.
not an issue that i would normally respond to but i will say that i feel something needs to be done. the UK is truthfully a pretty small bit of real estate, with most of the inhabitants crammed into the southern end (in relation to where i am anyway) which is currently (IMO) fairly crowded.
there is currently a problem with the available housing stock, huge demand little supply. strain in the health service, transport infrastructure and social benefit system. they are all linked to the numbers of population.
despite believing in the free passage of goods and people, the UK cannot indefinetly take in undeterminate numbers of people on either humanitarian or ecconomic grounds. some form of control is desirable.
not an issue that i would normally respond to but i will say that i feel something needs to be done. the UK is truthfully a pretty small bit of real estate, with most of the inhabitants crammed into the southern end (in relation to where i am anyway) which is currently (IMO) fairly crowded.
there is currently a problem with the available housing stock, huge demand little supply. strain in the health service, transport infrastructure and social benefit system. they are all linked to the numbers of population.
despite believing in the free passage of goods and people, the UK cannot indefinetly take in undeterminate numbers of people on either humanitarian or ecconomic grounds. some form of control is desirable.
Howard missed an opportunity this morning on R4 "Today" to say (if indeed he means this) we WOULD restrict the number of American, Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand, etc., immigrants coming here. Firstly, he would then look less colour sensitive, and secondly, why should we not treat these countries as they treat us? It's pretty hard to get residents' rights in any of them from here.
The Ministry of Truth has finally instituted the use of Newspeak - you no longer have an alternative word for "racist". "Foreigner", "immigrant", "refugee", and "Asylum-seeker", and "non-white" are not synonymous except in Newspeak. Control the language and you control the thoughts.
The Ministry of Truth has finally instituted the use of Newspeak - you no longer have an alternative word for "racist". "Foreigner", "immigrant", "refugee", and "Asylum-seeker", and "non-white" are not synonymous except in Newspeak. Control the language and you control the thoughts.
john75 said:
How on earth can you have quoters of Asylum seekers it would be a breach of UN Convention on Human Rights
And that, in one simple statement, sums up the whole problem. It's time to take control of our own borders, rather than just lie back and allow ourselves to be trampled on by an arbitrary piece of legislation dreamt up by completely unaccountable people whose countries pay no heed to it whatsoever.
The reality is that an unsustainable number of people from many of the world's poorest nations want to come here and that we cannot house them all. What's your solution?
What an utter f**k up. How can the Tories be so bloody stupid? As has been said, (a) this isn't at the top of voters list of concerns and (b) it is a minefield. Even if their proposals made any sense, the issue is so contentious that they have just handed over a big stick to anyone who wants to beat them up in the press. There is no snappy way of expressing a sensible immigration policy. You can't fit it into a sound bite. It is just plain stupid to try to make it a central part of your election campaign message. Inevitably you will end up having to say what your policy isn't, e.g. it isn't racist, it isn't anti-asylum, etc, etc. Consequently you end up apologising for your policy, and that is a monumental turn off to the electorate. Fools. Actually, what is worse, it just makes them look like bloody amateurs.
Prescott's First Time Buyer policies are pandering to a financially suicidal group that I've come across en masse at university - people determined to get on the property ladder and put down a deposit/get a mortgage a.s.a.p., regardless of whether they're living in the area where they're going to ultimately be working. Also, all these people are rushing for off London like Dick Whittington, but it's overcrowded, overpriced and vastly over-rated, especially when compared to Manchester and Edinburgh, which will see massive growth in coming years as the capital becomes too expensive for all but the millionaires to live in. Problem is, it seems like people would rather have a half-baked 'asset' at all costs, than a favourable bank balance.
The housing market must collapse at some point and I think a lot of people realise that.
Problem is, the Tories are always painted as DailyMailistas when it comes to immigration policy - and they don't exactly help the situation themselves.
We do not have an immigration problem in this country. We just seem to like to think we do so we can either feel all self important and shout 'send them all back', or go all lentilist and bow before every group of asylum-seekers chanting 'we are not worthy'.
Neither issue hold water and they really shouldn't hinge the election on them.
The housing market must collapse at some point and I think a lot of people realise that.
Problem is, the Tories are always painted as DailyMailistas when it comes to immigration policy - and they don't exactly help the situation themselves.
We do not have an immigration problem in this country. We just seem to like to think we do so we can either feel all self important and shout 'send them all back', or go all lentilist and bow before every group of asylum-seekers chanting 'we are not worthy'.
Neither issue hold water and they really shouldn't hinge the election on them.
I thought Howard sounded deeply uncomfortable on R4 this morning.
As the son of Jewish refugees, he will be aware how reluctant this country was to help the Jews during the Second World War.
Hearing Howard making comments about civil unrest caused by communities having too many newcomers (his term)was uncannily similar to the arguments trotted out during the 1930s and 1940s as a justification for doing bugger all to help European jews, who were left helpless in the hands of the Nazis.
I am not too troubled by immigration, be it asylum seekers, Australian back packers or economic migration. If the migrants have enough determination to get here, then they aren't likely to be happy receiving hand outs for the rest of their lives. Most of those that I meet are so determined to work that they will do so illegally. They don't remain a burden on the state for long.
You only need to look at the achievements made by so many of these migrants to see that they make a net contribution to the country.
What pisses me off is not immigration, but the long term unemployed that we have produced ourselves.
In this current climate of full employment, the existence of an underclass of home grown, domestically produced, full time claimants is what really needs to be sorted out.
Cheers
Pat
As the son of Jewish refugees, he will be aware how reluctant this country was to help the Jews during the Second World War.
Hearing Howard making comments about civil unrest caused by communities having too many newcomers (his term)was uncannily similar to the arguments trotted out during the 1930s and 1940s as a justification for doing bugger all to help European jews, who were left helpless in the hands of the Nazis.
I am not too troubled by immigration, be it asylum seekers, Australian back packers or economic migration. If the migrants have enough determination to get here, then they aren't likely to be happy receiving hand outs for the rest of their lives. Most of those that I meet are so determined to work that they will do so illegally. They don't remain a burden on the state for long.
You only need to look at the achievements made by so many of these migrants to see that they make a net contribution to the country.
What pisses me off is not immigration, but the long term unemployed that we have produced ourselves.
In this current climate of full employment, the existence of an underclass of home grown, domestically produced, full time claimants is what really needs to be sorted out.
Cheers
Pat
Mon Ami Mate said:
WOuld that be a withdrawal from an asylum specific clause of the convention, or the whole shebang?
The latter would surely be a backward step...
Why? How does it help us?
Sorry....how does the International Convention on Human Rights help us?
Are you having a Giraffe?
john75 said:
How on earth can you have quoters of Asylum seekers it would be a breach of UN Convention on Human Rights
The U.N. Convention States somewhere that if you wish to seek asylum, you should seek it in the FIRST U.N. country you get to, having left your own.. not wander across Europe to the rick pickings of the UK and then settle down.
The French for one must be laughing their socks off whilst all these immigrants wander over their soil, across the channel, then claim Assylum in the UK.
Matt.
>> Edited by M@H on Monday 24th January 11:45
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff