Housing "Refugees" / Economic Migrants - looking for a BETTER Life

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, morgan said:

Its not about charity, its about effective public services for the British taxpayer, that is the governments responsibilty to the electorate. If the government doesnt address the problem, with the current four year delay on processing applications, due to an underfunded immigration service. Britain will be housing thousands of refugees in temporary accomodation for the foreseeable future, while their applications are slowly being processed. Migration is going to increase in the coming decades, not decrease.

It suits the governments increasing right wing agendas very nicely - we have the refugee bogey people threatening our shores and the decent British way of life, Sunak blames the failure to address it on dangerous lefties, whilst doing absolutely nothing to address the problem. Its just rabble rousing, so the wider public ignore the decade long failings on inflation, the energy crisis, health, public services etc. Meanwhile the governments chums like Serco housing these refugees, make millions out of tax payers money. With a fit for purpose immigration service this crisis could be readily sorted out.

All we get from this government is coercion and division in British society, rather than good policy making. Migration dominates the headlines, though obviously a serious issue to already marginalised british working class communities and jobs, migration is only a small percentage of the budget. HS2 will cost the individual british tax payer far more than immigration will over the coming decade. This government is all about spin - people are thinking that the NHS is failing because of the refugee crisis.

We're an island and in a unique position within Europe in that preventing economic migrants illegally entering our country while not easy, should still be far easier to prevent here than any other European countries. If we implemented a policy that anyone entering the UK illegally will with immediate effect be deported the migrant problem would stop overnight. 

All that said, it deflects from the question I asked you, which is why do you believe the UK has a moral duty to accept illegal immigrants and economic migrants into this country? 

[morgan]

14 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

We're an island and in a unique position within Europe in that preventing economic migrants illegally entering our country while not easy, should still be far easier to prevent here than any other European countries. If we implemented a policy that anyone entering the UK illegally will with immediate effect be deported the migrant problem would stop overnight. 

All that said, it deflects from the question I asked you, which is why do you believe the UK has a moral duty to accept illegal immigrants and economic migrants into this country? 

At no point did I state that I belived in a moral duty to accept illegal immigrants into this country. Why would you assume that - the culture wars so effectively spun by this government and the media, have resulted in the popular belief that if you criticise the governments obvious failings - you are branded pro illegal immigration or a leftie labour supporter.

What I am criticising is the governments failings to support an effective 21st century immigration service for this country. The conservatives still have a large majority in the commons - they can do whatever they like. The Rwanda flights are just a gimmick - the government knew full well they were illegal and would not be allowed to go ahead. They were just a rabble rouser directed at the basest and vilest sectors of society, to start culture wars and cause division in society, so we take our eye off government incompetance. You realise the government is attempting to take power over appointing high court judges in this country which is a serious blow to democracy and withdrawing from the european court of human rights, which has far reaching implication for the rights of british citizens - under the smokescreen of enabling immigration laws.

Edited April 1, 2023 by morgan

[12gauge82]

11 minutes ago, morgan said:

At no point did I state that I belived in a moral duty to accept illegal immigrants into this country. Why would you assume that - the culture wars so effectively spun by this government and the media, have resulted in the popular belief that if you criticise the governments obvious failings - you are branded pro illegal immigration or a leftie labour supporter.

What I am criticising is the governments failings to support an effective 21st century immigration service for this country. The conservatives still have a large majority in the commons - they can do whatever they like. The Rwanda flights are just a gimmick - the government knew full well they were illegal and would not be allowed to go ahead. They were just a rabble rouser directed at the basest and vilest sectors of society, to start culture wars and cause division in society, so we take our eye off government incompetance. You realise the government is attempting to take power over appointing high court judges in this country which is a serious blow to democracy and withdrawing from the european court of human rights, which has far reaching implication for the rights of british citizens - under the smokescreen of enabling immigration laws.

I assumed you believe we have a moral duty as you suggest setting up routes for migrants to come here as if it's the only solution when it's clearly not. 

You talk of spin yet talk of effective 21st century solutions while ignoring the only one that has been on the whole effective in recent times, as implemented by Australia, they took a zero tolerance stance and immediately deported anyone arriving illegally, their immigration problem stopped virtually over night. 

[welsh1]

1 hour ago, morgan said:

The government has no real immigration policy. The Rwanda flights were just a lazy dog whistle gimmick by the clowns in power, to start culture wars and take the heat off the current administration and shift the blame to the left.  Its not a long term solution or a substitue for a properly functioning and funded 21st century immigration service.

What Blair did was relax the permit to work criteria which then allowed the pool of skilled eastern european labour to work in the UK, when the economy was booming, as most EU countries did at the time, it was nothing to do with illegal migration or status of asylum seekers. The catastrophic conflicts in the middle east have been the vector of the last decades immigration, apart from the obvious economic migrants from Albania and such like.

😂 

[12gauge82]

33 minutes ago, morgan said:

You realise the government is attempting to take power over appointing high court judges in this country which is a serious blow to democracy and withdrawing from the european court of human rights, which has far reaching implication for the rights of british citizens - under the smokescreen of enabling immigration laws.

No I don't realise the government is trying to take control of our independent legal system because that's not what's happening. 

Why do you assume that the government taking control back from European courts and giving control back to our own legal system and supreme court judges as voted for via one of the largest mandates ever handed to government from the electorate is a "serious blow to democracy"? 

Why do you assume that what ever legislation that is passed to replace some or all of the echr will give less protection to the people we want to protect than the current position? The echr has been used very effectively to date by terrorist not wanting to be deported, criminals wanting softer punishment, illegal immigrants to stay in this country and decent ordinary people, not so much! 

[janner]

Rishi sunak and his cabinet of cronies have no mandate from the electorate whatsoever, his policies have never been voted for in a general election, his policies have never even been voted for by the membership of the tory party,

The latest yougov poll as to wether the people back these pound shop tories and their kneejerk policies is 26%, those that would vote against these policies and back the opposition is 46%, 

 

[12gauge82]

2 minutes ago, janner said:

Rishi sunak and his cabinet of cronies have no mandate from the electorate whatsoever, his policies have never been voted for in a general election, his policies have never even been voted for by the membership of the tory party,

The latest yougov poll as to wether the people back these pound shop tories and their kneejerk policies is 26%, those that would vote against these policies and back the opposition is 46%, 

 

Incorrect, brexit was fought under taking back control. 

Taking control of our laws was a huge part of brexit and the Brexit referendum was one of the largest votes ever conducted in this country, I'm no fan of Rishi but there could hardly be a stronger mandate. 

[morgan]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

No I don't realise the government is trying to take control of our independent legal system because that's not what's happening. 

Why do you assume that the government taking control back from European courts and giving control back to our own legal system and supreme court judges as voted for via one of the largest mandates ever handed to government from the electorate is a "serious blow to democracy"? 

Why do you assume that what ever legislation that is passed to replace some or all of the echr will give less protection to the people we want to protect than the current position? The echr has been used very effectively to date by terrorist not wanting to be deported, criminals wanting softer punishment, illegal immigrants to stay in this country and decent ordinary people, not so much! 

Because its clear from this governments record of corruption, nepotism, lying, incompetance and general slimeyness and lack of vision across the board, that they cannot be trusted to appoint high court judges on purely political grounds. Do you think this government has a good track record ?

[morgan]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Incorrect, brexit was fought under taking back control. 

Taking control of our laws was a huge part of brexit and the Brexit referendum was one of the largest votes ever conducted in this country, I'm no fan of Rishi but there could hardly be a stronger mandate. 

Brexit was fought on misinformation and propaganda, to allow the off shore financial capital, foreign oligarchs and corporations that run this country and fund the conservative party, to properly stitch up their control over the British economy free of any restrictions. It had nothing to do with taking back control....contary to the belief of the many decent British working people that voted for it. We have a Russian billionaire who bought himself a seat in the House of Lords......Boris Johnson fought for a Chinese company to run our 5G communications network - our unelected Indian PM has a billionaire father in law, dual american citizenship and is richer than the King of England.....there are lots of clues there about the priorities of this government and for who's benefit this country is run.

Edited April 1, 2023 by morgan

[Newbie to this]

Oh dear

[12gauge82]

34 minutes ago, morgan said:

Because its clear from this governments record of corruption, nepotism, lying, incompetance and general slimeyness and lack of vision across the board, that they cannot be trusted to appoint high court judges on purely political grounds. Do you think this government has a good track record ?

I agree this government is appalling, however our legal and political systems are separate, politicians make the laws and judges oversee laws being implemented, any political corruption is separate from the law being implemented. 

27 minutes ago, morgan said:

Brexit was fought on misinformation and propaganda, to allow the off shore financial capital, foreign oligarchs and corporations that run this country and fund the conservative party, to properly stich up their control over the British economy free of any restrictions. It had nothing to do with taking back control....contary to the belief of the many decent British working people that voted for it. We have a Russian billionaire who bought himself a seat in the House of Lords......Boris Johnson fought for a Chinese company to run our 5G communications network - our unelected Indian PM has a billionaire father in law, dual american citizenship and is richer than the King of England.....there are lots of clues there about the prorities of this government and for who's benefit this country is run.

That's your opinion and we're going to have to disagree. However it deflects from the original point which is our government has a very clear mandate via the Brexit referendum to give control back to UK courts. 

As for the rest of your points, I agree, I'm very unhappy with the Conservatives. 

[morgan]

12 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I agree this government is appalling, however our legal and political systems are separate, politicians make the laws and judges oversee laws being implemented, any political corruption is separate from the law being implemented. 

That's your opinion and we're going to have to disagree. However it deflects from the original point which is our government has a very clear mandate via the Brexit referendum to give control back to UK courts. 

As for the rest of your points, I agree, I'm very unhappy with the Conservatives. 

Yes for sure, Its important to be able to have good natured discussions and be interested in other peoples points of view and take on it all 👍

Edited April 1, 2023 by morgan

[armsid]

If we had a scheme to force the work shy into work and cut benniffits we would not need so many immigrants just those with the skills our own employers do not have. The skill shortage is due to companies not having apprentice training schools engineering colleges(Cov. Tech for one) being closed jobs going elsewhere and nothing of substancial wages to replace them hence low payed unskilled work and automation which again throws up more unemployment We have left wing lawyers trying to stop deportations thwarting the Dublin Agreement and people not being able to give a better way to solve the crisis which has been going on since Blair lied to parliament and went into war in the Middle East

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, armsid said:

If we had a scheme to force the work shy into work and cut benniffits we would not need so many immigrants just those with the skills our own employers do not have. The skill shortage is due to companies not having apprentice training schools engineering colleges(Cov. Tech for one) being closed jobs going elsewhere and nothing of substancial wages to replace them hence low payed unskilled work and automation which again throws up more unemployment We have left wing lawyers trying to stop deportations thwarting the Dublin Agreement and people not being able to give a better way to solve the crisis which has been going on since Blair lied to parliament and went into war in the Middle East

I presume from the above that you favour the abolition of human rights rather like the strategy employed by Putin? 

Who are these 'work shy' ? How would you force them into work? 

Skills our own employers do not have? Would that be teachers, doctors, care home workers, hospitality workers, construction workers, farm labourers? 

We need either mass immigration or investment in efficiency to maintain what we have. 

[12gauge82]

7 hours ago, morgan said:

Yes for sure, Its important to be able to have good natured discussions and be interested in other peoples points of view and take on it all 👍

Absolutely 👍

[TIGHTCHOKE]

7 hours ago, oowee said:

I presume from the above that you favour the abolition of human rights rather like the strategy employed by Putin? 

Who are these 'work shy' ? How would you force them into work? 

Skills our own employers do not have? Would that be teachers, doctors, care home workers, hospitality workers, construction workers, farm labourers? 

We need either mass immigration or investment in efficiency to maintain what we have. 

You appear to wish to give away what we "have" to any one who wants it!

[harrycatcat1]

9 hours ago, oowee said:

I presume from the above that you favour the abolition of human rights rather like the strategy employed by Putin? 

Who are these 'work shy' ? How would you force them into work? 

Skills our own employers do not have? Would that be teachers, doctors, care home workers, hospitality workers, construction workers, farm labourers? 

We need either mass immigration or investment in efficiency to maintain what we have. 

I sometimes wonder if folks really think like this or are they just wind up merchants 🤔

[oowee]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

You appear to wish to give away what we "have" to any one who wants it!

i certainly don't want to give my rights away to a right wing authoritarian regime. 

32 minutes ago, harrycatcat1 said:

I sometimes wonder if folks really think like this or are they just wind up merchants 🤔

The UK economy and social structure is built on growth. Take that away, by restricting the economy (Brexit) and allowing a shortage of labour, whilst at the same time increasing benefits (pensions) and the sums will not add up. Would you propose cutting benefits (pensions)?

[Keith 66]

17 hours ago, old man said:

It would be illuminating to know whose mates/relatives are too close to the above companies receiving the contracts?

I bet the FOI act doesn't cover that?

A look on companies house website should tell you who the directors are, But its going to be murky working it all out!

[12gauge82]

36 minutes ago, oowee said:

i certainly don't want to give my rights away to a right wing authoritarian regime. 

The UK economy and social structure is built on growth. Take that away, by restricting the economy (Brexit) and allowing a shortage of labour, whilst at the same time increasing benefits (pensions) and the sums will not add up. Would you propose cutting benefits (pensions)?

Growth isn't necessarily good for everyone, that's a very simplistic view. 

What about all the low and semi skilled workers whos pay and working conditions have been heavily supressed due to the floods of available cheap eu workers, your right their is now a balance of slightly more jobs than workers but that is a very good thing for ordinary people as it pushes wages up, allows good job availability and working conditions, the benefits of economic growth are more often than not the greatest benefit to very wealthy people with the working class reliant on the more virtuous willing to share some of that wealth around. 

[JohnfromUK]

12 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Growth isn't necessarily good for everyone

Growth needs to come from improved productivity - not importing labour.

[oowee]

7 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Growth isn't necessarily good for everyone, that's a very simplistic view. 

What about all the low and semi skilled workers whos pay and working conditions have been heavily supressed due to the floods of available cheap eu workers, your right their is now a balance of slightly more jobs than workers but that is a very good thing for ordinary people as it pushes wages up, allows good job availability and working conditions, the benefits of economic growth are more often than not the greatest benefit to very wealthy people with the working class reliant on the more virtuous willing to share some of that wealth around. 

We rely upon them to keep the wheels turning. I dont see an improvement in conditions post eu. I see a government wanting to reduce standards for workers. Unfortunately, for the economy, they are living longer and drawing pension. There are simply not enough paying in for the services we want and those on pensions (benefits) drawing out. 

The wages rising is an illusion. As pay rises (without efficiency) we loose competitiveness and market share. There will be even less tax available. 

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

Growth needs to come from improved productivity - not importing labour.

Yes ^^^^ 

Unfortunately there are few mechanisms to promote this and the govt is proposing reducing standards and rights. The very things that promote efficiency. 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, oowee said:

The very things that promote efficiency.

No.  Many of the standards actually promote 'inefficiency' and restrict free ideas development. 

Example 1 - Apple being made by legislators to use USB-C rather than their own proprietary (Lightning?) connector.

Example 2 - Gas fire manufacturers being made to meet efficiency targets with mean that the minimum settings which are much used by many users actually use more gas (albeit for more heat), reducing flexibility of usage.

There are loads of examples where 'standards' which are well intentioned stifle innovation and competition - which lead to better and more efficient devices and methods.

[12gauge82]

8 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Growth needs to come from improved productivity - not importing labour.

Absolutely. Nothing wrong with capitalism and wealth creation but it should be built from within the country, investing in the people thus creating wealth for all. It should not be imported skipping the working masses

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

We rely upon them to keep the wheels turning. I dont see an improvement in conditions post eu. I see a government wanting to reduce standards for workers. Unfortunately, for the economy, they are living longer and drawing pension. There are simply not enough paying in for the services we want and those on pensions (benefits) drawing out. 

The wages rising is an illusion. As pay rises (without efficiency) we loose competitiveness and market share. There will be even less tax available. 

Yes ^^^^ 

Unfortunately there are few mechanisms to promote this and the govt is proposing reducing standards and rights. The very things that promote efficiency. 

Improvement will take time, companies need to realise they can no longer employ ready made cheap labour from abroad, they need to train their own people and that takes time, particularly when it is a skilled worker, for instance you can't start an apprenticeship scheme and knock out fully qualified carpenters and bricklayers in a year or two. 

[oowee]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

No.  Many of the standards actually promote 'inefficiency' and restrict free ideas development. 

Example 1 - Apple being made by legislators to use USB-C rather than their own proprietary (Lightning?) connector.

Example 2 - Gas fire manufacturers being made to meet efficiency targets with mean that the minimum settings which are much used by many users actually use more gas (albeit for more heat), reducing flexibility of usage.

There are loads of examples where 'standards' which are well intentioned stifle innovation and competition - which lead to better and more efficient devices and methods.

Workers standards and rights are not the same as service standards. 

Separately Apple chooses to use that connection to sell into that market. Good news for waste and the consumer. 

3 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Absolutely. Nothing wrong with capitalism and wealth creation but it should be built from within the country, investing in the people thus creating wealth for all. It should not be imported skipping the working masses

So why reduce workers rights (making them expendable) encouraging turnover and volume rather and lower costs. We have to invest in labour not exploit it. 

6 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Absolutely. Nothing wrong with capitalism and wealth creation but it should be built from within the country, investing in the people thus creating wealth for all. It should not be imported skipping the working masses

Improvement will take time, companies need to realise they can no longer employ ready made cheap labour from abroad, they need to train their own people and that takes time, particularly when it is a skilled worker, for instance you can't start an apprenticeship scheme and knock out fully qualified carpenters and bricklayers in a year or two. 

^^^^^ This. ^^^^ This and ^^^^^this. Where is the plan, and investment support to produce the quality skills we need. Where is the plan to support stem subjects and learning. It's all so broken under a free market led economy. We will race to the bottom at a time we need to lead from the front. 

If you don't have targeted investment into learning you need more labour.