I appreciate that you summarise the current situation, but what I am suggesting is that we revise the situation. I have no problem of Spain controlling its own borders as it sees fit.
If we want immigration to make us richer, then it seems very reasonable to choose those most likely to do so. Unskilled, non-English speakers are much less likely to be net contributors to the economy than highly qualified migrants with fluent English.
Unless you plan to have an open door, abolish the welfare state and have shanty towns like at Marble Arch, there will be a degree of selection. We can argue what the numbers and skills required should be, but the principle is the same whether we are looking for Latvian plumbers or Indian Engineers.
It's not. Latvian plumbers get in whether they speak English or not. Indian engineers do not. UKIP are right on this: you do not get to control your borders if you are an EU member state. We can debate all we like; nothing changes that simple fact. In the same way, Spain has to look after hundreds of thousands of British immigrants who speak no Spanish and make no net contribution to the Spanish economy.
I tend to agree on that point, but antifrank seemed to think it was about the question of how much (legal) immigration we should allow.
Wasnt that the point of another of the proposed amendments? (The one restricting immigration from Romania and Bulgaria?) The crazy thing about the amendment allowing the Government to make people stateless is that it isnt some crazy backbench amendment - it's a Government one. Supported by the Lib Dems! (On the grounds that it wont affect many people, you couldnt make this stuff up.)
Believe it or not it looks like those few lib dems left that still care about such things have actually begun to notice and are curiously not best pleased with Clegg's latest ludicrous authoritarian stupidity.
It's not just the tories who are looking a shambles today. Clegg's stepped right in it. Yet again. But at least it's not yet more questions about Rennard I suppose.
Free borders is the greatest weapon against poor behavior by governments. It is what allows people to escape tyranny and to build better lives.
So what if you face more competition in the workplace? Why is that my concern? And why should that even be the concern of the state?
That's a curious juxtaposition. You might equally ask why assisting foreigners to escape tyranny and to build better lives should be your concern. Certainly it's not obvious why it should be a concern of the (British) state, rather than the effects of competition in the workplace on British citizens (assuming of course that such competition is deleterious, which is a separate point).
I'm absolutely astounded that the Army have been brought in to help out flooded communities in Somerset. Admittedly, the Army has capabilities beyond us, such as bridging equipment, but this type of thing is tailor made for the UK Fire and Rescue Service. We have the equipment, we have the numbers, but above all we have the skills and motivation to get involved. Utilising the Army, whilst you've got hundreds of firefighters from all over the country itching to get involved makes me almost think the government were playing politics!
TFS
Just put the army in No 1 dress, line them up in ranks and get them to march to their bands as you do the hard work.
Coerce or bribe the bands into playing a few Naval sea shanties and it will relieve the burdens of labour and add to the jollity of the occasion for all.
It might sound like an expensive solution but once you take into account the boost to tourist revenues it should only work out at around £0.60 per person per day.
@foxinsoxuk - "I appreciate that you summarise the current situation, but what I am suggesting is that we revise the situation. I have no problem of Spain controlling its own borders as it sees fit."
So withdrawal from the EU. It's the only way that's going to happen. UKIP is right.
"Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson has stepped down as an Oxfam ambassador after criticism of her support for Israeli company SodaStream.
The charity said the actress's role was incompatible with being an Oxfam global ambassador."
Oxfam a "fake charity". The things you learn from PBTories eh.
Not saying this is the case for Oxfam, but there are problems with many organisations being called charities. For one thing, spending a fortune on lobbying governments is not exactly a charitable act. When the organisation gets a fortune from the governments it is lobbying, then you have to ask when the self-feeding circle will end.
What a complete nonsense from start to finish. We should be making immigration easier, not harder.
Absolutely. Those who want to curb immigration want to make us poorer.
Those who support mass immigration seem to like the idea of making the rich richer and the poor poorer... then justifying it on an government GDP figure that means nothing to poor families
There isn't a finite amount of work available. So more immigrants can be of overall benefit to everyone.
There will be losers from any social change (the increase in female participation in the workforce was bad news for less able men). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. It means that we have to look to help those who potentially lose out.
Exactly right. Also we shouldn't forget that anti-immigration types always overstate the impact on low wages when they're doing their working class hero act.
In reality, the impact of immigration is negligible compared to other factors (the level of minimum wage, taxes and benefits, housing costs etc etc).
One study by University College London found the low-paid lost 0.7p an hour (compared with the £6.19 an hour minimum wage), while middle earners gained 1.5p and upper earners 2p. Calculations of the impact on average wages range from small increase to small decline, but amounts are negligible.
Voluntary income £111.5m (including £11.2m from DFID which counts as voluntary) Total net trading income £22.5m Income from government, institutional donors and other public authorities £162.1m
Except that there are many other things more important than immigration that determine my vote, and UKIP fails badly on those. I think that mobility of labour is fine, mobility of the non-working not so.
Overall I favour remaining in the EU, but would want to see it significantly reformed. I am a LD (and rather appalled at Ashdowns supine behaviour over the Jesus and Mo cartoons on Newsnight last night)
@foxinsoxuk - "I appreciate that you summarise the current situation, but what I am suggesting is that we revise the situation. I have no problem of Spain controlling its own borders as it sees fit."
So withdrawal from the EU. It's the only way that's going to happen. UKIP is right.
The worrying thing about that website (for 'yes' supporters) is that Better Together doesnt appear to have any campaigning activity planned for the weekend after next (and they seem to be focussed on leafleting which has its place but isnt exactly targeted).
If a charity gets too large, perhaps the Charities Commission should step in and split it up into smaller, more competitive units run by volunteers?
We should get the competition authorities to take the same approach to businesses, Avery. If it's too large to be run by a few volunteers giving up some evenings and weekends then break it up!
To summarise, the opposition is voting down something because they’ve been told it’s illegal by a government that’s not voting it down. Which makes sense.
What a complete nonsense from start to finish. We should be making immigration easier, not harder.
Absolutely. Those who want to curb immigration want to make us poorer.
Those who support mass immigration seem to like the idea of making the rich richer and the poor poorer... then justifying it on an government GDP figure that means nothing to poor families
There isn't a finite amount of work available. So more immigrants can be of overall benefit to everyone.
There will be losers from any social change (the increase in female participation in the workforce was bad news for less able men). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. It means that we have to look to help those who potentially lose out.
Exactly right. Also we shouldn't forget that anti-immigration types always overstate the impact on low wages when they're doing their working class hero act.
In reality, the impact of immigration is negligible compared to other factors (the level of minimum wage, taxes and benefits, housing costs etc etc).
One study by University College London found the low-paid lost 0.7p an hour (compared with the £6.19 an hour minimum wage), while middle earners gained 1.5p and upper earners 2p. Calculations of the impact on average wages range from small increase to small decline, but amounts are negligible.
I wish I were rich enough to be in favour of mass immigration
If you were genuinely concerned about the lower paid you'd be better arguing for a rise in the minimum wage. Or against nutty policies like, say, flat taxes or leaving the EU.
Instead, you obsess about a negligible impact on low wages caused by immigration.
Low wages and the plight of the low paid are a genuine concern for you and not just a smokescreen, aren't they?
Yes because taking people on the minimum wage out of paying tax is such a regressive policy isn't it?
If you want yo tell all the sparks I knock about with that mass immigration of Eastern European labour has been good for their pay packet, all the best.
£150 a day down to £85 a day ain't so great, except for the bosses
As Fox says, the problem with the immigration debate is that it gets simplified into being either no immigration or completely open door.
The immigrants I have met are all hard working and I have no problems with them at all. The issues most people have are about a lack of control in the immigration system, in particular:
1) Being able to control the number of unskilled immigrants who come into the UK each year 2) Making sure that people are not able to come over and claim benefits or council housing without paying in (if someone works for 5 years here then needs claim that is fair enough) 3) Making sure the small minority of immigrants who come here and break the law can be deported 4) Making sure that immigrants learn English (or Welsh) and integrate.
If you ask people in other countries, like the US or Canada they would not think these demands unreasonable. Yet with our EU membership we cannot do 1 and 2. No. 3 we occasionally manage but it can take 10 years (see Abu Qatada). 4 might be slightly improving with a cut back on translation services
To summarise, the opposition is voting down something because they’ve been told it’s illegal by a government that’s not voting it down. Which makes sense.
You probably think it's Labour that comes out badly from that.
If a charity gets too large, perhaps the Charities Commission should step in and split it up into smaller, more competitive units run by volunteers?
We should get the competition authorities to take the same approach to businesses, Avery. If it's too large to be run by a few volunteers giving up some evenings and weekends then break it up!
Neil
I am all in favour of big business seconding executives to charities in lieu of donations. A three to five year term would be sufficient.
That way a larger proportion of donor funds from the public would go towards supporting the charitable cause and charities would cease to have its management used as a parking place for failed politicians.
The efficiency and effectiveness of charity management would improve.
It would also prevent the massive waste of donor funds used in political lobbying.
Not that I object to political lobbying as an activity. I just believe it shouldn't benefit from the tax concessions properly given to mainstream charitable activity.
As Fox says, the problem with the immigration debate is that it gets simplified into being either no immigration or completely open door.
The immigrants I have met are all hard working and I have no problems with them at all. The issues most people have are about a lack of control in the immigration system, in particular:
1) Being able to control the number of unskilled immigrants who come into the UK each year 2) Making sure that people are not able to come over and claim benefits or council housing without paying in (if someone works for 5 years here then needs claim that is fair enough) 3) Making sure the small minority of immigrants who come here and break the law can be deported 4) Making sure that immigrants learn English (or Welsh) and integrate.
If you ask people in other countries, like the US or Canada they would not think these demands unreasonable. Yet with our EU membership we cannot do 1 and 2. No. 3 we occasionally manage but it can take 10 years (see Abu Qatada). 4 might be slightly improving with a cut back on translation services
On one extreme you have the BNP, wanting a ban on immigration, and repatriation
On the other extreme you have people like Tim, Hugh. Anti frank and Mike Smithson, who want open borders and encourage immigrants to come (as long as they aren't from Asia, America or Africa)
In the middle sit ukip, wanting controlled immigration
To summarise, the opposition is voting down something because they’ve been told it’s illegal by a government that’s not voting it down. Which makes sense.
You probably think it's Labour that comes out badly from that.
What I think and what the tabloids think of it may be two different matters.....
I think we should close down Oxfam, sack all their workers and give whatever funds they have to pay off the debts of poor nations.
I can understand why some rightwingers dont like trade unions. I get that you sometimes dont like trendy arts organisations too. But Oxfam?! Vilifying Oxfam? Sweet lord.
My point is that all monies given to charities that purport to help the poor overseas should be given to the governments of those countries directly.
Lets cut out the (sometimes very well paid and highly politicised) Middlemen The Middlemen who are sitting on billions while they decide on a country's behalf whether a project is 'worth it' or not. The middlemen who are sitting on that money to guarantee their own salaries and pensions.
I read years ago that UK charities alone are sitting on GBP80bn.
Indeed, Mr. Isam. It would be interesting to compare the location of residence and work/salary of those who are so pro-immigration with those who are uncertain, and those who are very much against large scale migration.
The arguments over economics that emerge in debates over immigration, the EU, or Scottish independence are almost beside the point. The economic impact of increasing/reducing immigration, leaving/staying in the EU, voting Yes/No is frankly pretty marginal in the scheme of things. Regardless of the decisions that are made, the UK (or an independent Scotland) are and will remain wealthy countries,
What really motivate people one way or the other are social and cultural concerns, and identity.
Or "anti"-identity. I do wonder how much of the proponency of immigration by the likes of antifrank, Mike Smithson, rcs1000 etc is because they don't really like the people who want to restrict it, why they want to restrict, and the crude way in which (some) sometimes express their views on it. So, defining yourself against it, actually, becomes a great way of "anti"-identity: marking yourself out in polite society as an intelligent, 'progressive', broad-minded, open and tolerant person.
The trouble is it kills any real debate about a sensible balance. There are very few subjects you can't engage these excellent posters upon. Unfortunately, immigration is one of them. Europe is possibly another.
Any rational person ought to be able to soberly calculate that there's some merit to both sides of the argument. We need to focus on striking a reasonable balance - flexing immigration levels according to both economic and socio-cultural factors - but this dialogue is rarely present. Any fool should be able to work out that immigration isn't just about the money; we're talking about people of all things. Of course, I'd argue that we got that wrong over the last 15 years, and ~4 million+ net immigrants during that time is too many. Obviously, zero would be ridiculous too. There's a level that will both benefit the economy, and will be broadly accepted by society, even welcomed. But people have to be consulted, and genuinely feel consulted, confident its under control and periodically engaged on its sustainability.
We have a duty to acknowledge these concerns and have that dialogue. But both sides still tend to argue in a way that fails to listen and totally shuts out the other. I'd argue, unfortunately, that this is more pronounced on the pro-immigration side as the detestation of those who oppose immigration is so strong that it leads to a lack of any desire to even acknowledge, listen and understand the real concerns in the first place. And these people, unfortunately, dominate much of the mainstream media and (at least) two established Westminster parties.
And people wonder why voters are so disillusioned.
My point is that all monies given to charities that purport to help the poor overseas should be given to the governments of those countries directly.
Lets cut out the (sometimes very well paid and highly politicised) Middlemen The Middlemen who are sitting on billions while they decide on a country's behalf whether a project is 'worth it' or not. The middlemen who are sitting on that money to guarantee their own salaries and pensions.
I read years ago that UK charities alone are sitting on GBP80bn.
"My point is that all monies given to charities that purport to help the poor overseas should be given to the governments of those countries directly."
You mean straight to the President's Swiss Bank account ? I mean Dubai account.
I think we should close down Oxfam, sack all their workers and give whatever funds they have to pay off the debts of poor nations.
I can understand why some rightwingers dont like trade unions. I get that you sometimes dont like trendy arts organisations too. But Oxfam?! Vilifying Oxfam? Sweet lord.
FWIW, we absolutely refuse to fund any charities that look to engage in political lobbying as a substantial part of their activities.
The problem is that they often end up seeing the 'engagement' as an objective in itself - and they often become divorced from the people that they are supposed to be helping.
There again, our mission is to identify and support for 'dynamic individuals and charities that are developing innovative solution to long-standing problems'. We want to encourage the risk takers in the charity sector, not the Oxfams and RSPCAs of the world.
The worrying thing about that website (for 'yes' supporters) is that Better Together doesnt appear to have any campaigning activity planned for the weekend after next (and they seem to be focussed on leafleting which has its place but isnt exactly targeted).
The issue is rather, for some, whether the advertised BT events happen at all or are just made up to the minimum (if at all) to look good in press releases - and perhaps a teeny suspicion that they are therefore effectively claiming a major Yes meeting as equivalent to 1 No person handing out leaflets for 10 mins to wet and tired commuters.
I keep an open mind, but the impression I have from my neck of the woods is that there may be more than a little truth in this suspicion - at least two substantial Yes meetings, one with Mr Canavan, versus nothing more than a few No leaflets on the local Labour party stand (as well as the raffle and much else).
. Fortunately, an empirical (though not without warning) check by independent (!) inspectors is under way today - and I look forward to the results.
The wider question here is to what extent the No Campaign can claim to be a truly grassroots one - and therefore what that might imply, bearing in mind the strength of the Labour and LD parties in Scotland, not to mention the Tories (still much stronger than Westminster implies, thanks to FPTP).
What a complete nonsense from start to finish. We should be making immigration easier, not harder.
Absolutely. Those who want to curb immigration want to make us poorer.
s
One study by University College London found the low-paid lost 0.7p an hour (compared with the £6.19 an hour minimum wage), while middle earners gained 1.5p and upper earners 2p. Calculations of the impact on average wages range from small increase to small decline, but amounts are negligible.
I wish I were rich enough to be in favour of mass immigration
If you were genuinely concerned about the lower paid you'd be better arguing for a rise in the minimum wage. Or against nutty policies like, say, flat taxes or leaving the EU.
Instead, you obsess about a negligible impact on low wages caused by immigration.
Low wages and the plight of the low paid are a genuine concern for you and not just a smokescreen, aren't they?
Yes because taking people on the minimum wage out of paying tax is such a regressive policy isn't it?
If you want yo tell all the sparks I knock about with that mass immigration of Eastern European labour has been good for their pay packet, all the best.
£150 a day down to £85 a day ain't so great, except for the bosses
Ah passive aggressive lefties, what a delight
Oh Wolfie, you're such a trooper.
Fact is, immigration has negligible impact on low wages overall. So any Government or anyone genuinely concerned with the low paid should focus on those issues that DO have a huge impact, like the minimum wage, or taxes and benefits.
Probably why working class voters are many times more likely to support political parties like Labour or even the Tories than headcases like UKIP.
You're entitled to your view, we shall see what happens in the next year or two
As Fox says, the problem with the immigration debate is that it gets simplified into being either no immigration or completely open door.
The immigrants I have met are all hard working and I have no problems with them at all. The issues most people have are about a lack of control in the immigration system, in particular:
1) Being able to control the number of unskilled immigrants who come into the UK each year 2) Making sure that people are not able to come over and claim benefits or council housing without paying in (if someone works for 5 years here then needs claim that is fair enough) 3) Making sure the small minority of immigrants who come here and break the law can be deported 4) Making sure that immigrants learn English (or Welsh) and integrate.
If you ask people in other countries, like the US or Canada they would not think these demands unreasonable. Yet with our EU membership we cannot do 1 and 2. No. 3 we occasionally manage but it can take 10 years (see Abu Qatada). 4 might be slightly improving with a cut back on translation services
Yes, and I think it also needs to consider the overall numbers of immigrants who settle in the UK over a rolling 1-3-5 year timeframe as well.
I'm absolutely astounded that the Army have been brought in to help out flooded communities in Somerset. Admittedly, the Army has capabilities beyond us, such as bridging equipment, but this type of thing is tailor made for the UK Fire and Rescue Service. We have the equipment, we have the numbers, but above all we have the skills and motivation to get involved. Utilising the Army, whilst you've got hundreds of firefighters from all over the country itching to get involved makes me almost think the government were playing politics!
Surely it depends on what they want to achieve? Sure, the fire service can help with pumping and rescuing people, but it could well be there's something more fundamental involved: for instance, temporarily breaking down flood barriers or as you say, bridging. Even the construction of new pumping stations larger than the temporary HVPs the fire service has available. Even transporting HVPs into rural areas along with fuel and supplies.
It makes sense to get the military down there to see what they can help with. I bet the respective fire services are there as well.
Of course you're correct, Josias. I guess it's frustration creeping in. The unpalatable truth for me, is that the UK Fire and Rescue Service is vastly underutilised, and when Sky News are shouting "Army mobilised to flooding", during a time of industrial action, for us, its frustrating. Since the major terrorist attacks during this century, we've had a truckload of money shoved at National Resilience, and we have a superbly trained and equipped Service, that doesn't get used as much as it should. The government should just call it a national emergency, and mobilise UK USAR teams down there, with more boats, HPVs, hose layers and more importantly, experts ready and able to get involved. The army definitely has a role, but if you need experts in water rescue, pumping, even disaster relief, you need to be talking to Firefighter Smith, not Private Smith. I'm of the opinion that we should have a national Rescue Service, combining Fire, USAR, Ambulance, even Mines and Cave Rescue, Mountain Rescue, diving capability, maybe even Lifeboats. Instead we have a piecemeal approach.
Yes because taking people on the minimum wage out of paying tax is such a regressive policy isn't it?
If you want yo tell all the sparks I knock about with that mass immigration of Eastern European labour has been good for their pay packet, all the best.
£150 a day down to £85 a day ain't so great, except for the bosses
Fact is, immigration has negligible impact on low wages overall. So any Government or anyone genuinely concerned with the low paid should focus on those issues that DO have a huge impact, like the minimum wage, or taxes and benefits.
Probably why working class voters are many times more likely to support political parties like Labour or even the Tories than headcases like UKIP.
"Fact is, immigration has negligible impact on low wages overall." - yeah, sod the minority who've been hit hard.
Worth comparing that view with the shrieks of indignation on the bedroom tax when a small minority of people were perceived as being harshly done by, despite the manifest fairness of the change in its totality.
Indeed, Mr. Isam. It would be interesting to compare the location of residence and work/salary of those who are so pro-immigration with those who are uncertain, and those who are very much against large scale migration.
the EU, voting Yes/No is frankly pretty marginal in the scheme of things. Regardless of the decisions that are made, the UK (or an independent Scotland) are and will remain wealthy countries,
What really motivate people one way or the other are social and cultural concerns, and identity.
Or "anti"-identity. I do wonder how much of the proponency of immigration by the likes of antifrank, Mike Smithson, rcs1000 etc is because they don't really like the people who want to restrict it, why they want to restrict, and the crude way in which (some) sometimes express their views on it. So, defining yourself against it, actually, becomes a great way of "anti"-identity: marking yourself out in polite society as an intelligent, 'progressive', broad-minded, open and tolerant person.
The trouble is it kills any real debate about a sensible balance. There are very few subjects you can't engage these excellent posters upon. Unfortunately, immigration is one of them. Europe is possibly another.
Any rational person ought to be able to soberly calculate that there's some merit to both sides of the argument. We need to focus on striking a reasonable balance - flexing immigration levels according to both economic and socio-cultural factors - but this dialogue is rarely present. Any fool should be able to work out that immigration isn't just about the money; we're talking about people of all things. Of course, I'd argue that we got that wrong over the last 15 years, and ~4 million+ net immigrants during that time is too many. Obviously, zero would be ridiculous too. There's a level that will both benefit the economy, and will be broadly accepted by society, even welcomed. But people have to be consulted, and genuinely feel consulted, confident its under control and periodically engaged on its sustainability.
We have a duty to acknowledge these concerns and have that dialogue. But both sides still tend to argue in a way that fails to listen and totally shuts out the other. I'd argue, unfortunately, that this is more pronounced on the pro-immigration side as the detestation of those who oppose immigration is so strong that it leads to a lack of any desire to even acknowledge, listen and understand the real concerns in the first place. And these people, unfortunately, dominate much of the mainstream media and (at least) two established Westminster parties.
And people wonder why voters are so disillusioned.
Get a grip PBTories! Step back , think about what you're saying, think where your once great party has ended up, what the noble Conservative politicians of the past would think about where you are on this!
Challenging the consensus of the metropolitan elite?
I am most entertained by parliamentary shambles, especially ones that cause upset for nice Mr Cameron.
However, let's not get carried away about the impact of said shambles on voting intentions which is precisely nowt. No one is going to read about this event and change their mind on who to vote for - indeed most punters won't know the issues the people or what happened
However, what it does is encourage the foaming dog fever wing of the pparliamentary Conservative Party (most of them) that Cameron doesn't get it, isn't I'd them or for them, and that like Tony Benn on Labour benches past they must save the party by destroying it electorally. What frootloop policies they try to impose at the next showdown and the next and the next - that's where we get the impact on voting as middle of the road punters come to the remarkable conclusion that Tories are bonkers.
As Fox says, the problem with the immigration debate is that it gets simplified into being either no immigration or completely open door.
The immigrants I have met are all hard working and I have no problems with them at all. The issues most people have are about a lack of control in the immigration system, in particular:
1) Being able to control the number of unskilled immigrants who come into the UK each year 2) Making sure that people are not able to come over and claim benefits or council housing without paying in (if someone works for 5 years here then needs claim that is fair enough) 3) Making sure the small minority of immigrants who come here and break the law can be deported 4) Making sure that immigrants learn English (or Welsh) and integrate.
If you ask people in other countries, like the US or Canada they would not think these demands unreasonable. Yet with our EU membership we cannot do 1 and 2. No. 3 we occasionally manage but it can take 10 years (see Abu Qatada). 4 might be slightly improving with a cut back on translation services
On one extreme you have the BNP, wanting a ban on immigration, and repatriation
On the other extreme you have people like Tim, Hugh. Anti frank and Mike Smithson, who want open borders and encourage immigrants to come (as long as they aren't from Asia, America or Africa)
In the middle sit ukip, wanting controlled immigration
I'm entirely comfortable with immigrants coming from Asia, America and Africa. There are more immigrants from each of those regions than from Romania and Bulgaria put together, which makes the current hysteria even more baffling.
@Casino_Royale - We have a duty to acknowledge these concerns and have that dialogue. But both sides still tend to argue in a way that fails to listen and totally shuts out the other. I'd argue, unfortunately, that this is more pronounced on the pro-immigration side as the detestation of those who oppose immigration is so strong that it leads to a lack of any desire to even acknowledge, listen and understand the real concerns in the first place. And these people, unfortunately, dominate much of the mainstream media and (at least) two established Westminster parties.
And people wonder why voters are so disillusioned.
A very good post. However, those who believe in high immigration have as many insults thrown at them as they throw themselves. They are accused of being sneering, metropolitan elitists who are cut off from reality, have no interest in ordinary people and hate/dislike and/or are embarrassed by this country. As far as I can see, such views - which you find expressed on here pretty regularly - are pretty hate-filled.
Voodoo poll currently has 70% of people saying they would vote against Green party's proposed 4.75% council tax increase in Brighton if it gets put to them in a referendum. You can watch the 'no confidence' debate streamed live from the Hove town hall!
Get a grip PBTories! Step back , think about what you're saying, think where your once great party has ended up, what the noble Conservative politicians of the past would think about where you are on this!
Challenging the consensus of the metropolitan elite?
Oxfam has very broad popular support for what it does, it's not a creature of the metropolitan elite.
Worth comparing that view with the shrieks of indignation on the bedroom tax when a small minority of people were perceived as being harshly done by, despite the manifest fairness of the change in its totality.
As Fox says, the problem with the immigration debate is that it gets simplified into being either no immigration or completely open door.
The immigrants I have met are all hard working and I have no problems with them at all. The issues most people have are about a lack of control in the immigration system, in particular:
1) Being able to control the number of unskilled immigrants who come into the UK each year 2) Making sure that people are not able to come over and claim benefits or council housing without paying in (if someone works for 5 years here then needs claim that is fair enough) 3) Making sure the small minority of immigrants who come here and break the law can be deported 4) Making sure that immigrants learn English (or Welsh) and integrate.
If you ask people in other countries, like the US or Canada they would not think these demands unreasonable. Yet with our EU membership we cannot do 1 and 2. No. 3 we occasionally manage but it can take 10 years (see Abu Qatada). 4 might be slightly improving with a cut back on translation services
On one extreme you have the BNP, wanting a ban on immigration, and repatriation
On the other extreme you have people like Tim, Hugh. Anti frank and Mike Smithson, who want open borders and encourage immigrants to come (as long as they aren't from Asia, America or Africa)
In the middle sit ukip, wanting controlled immigration
I'm entirely comfortable with immigrants coming from Asia, America and Africa. There are more immigrants from each of those regions than from Romania and Bulgaria put together, which makes the current hysteria even more baffling.
More immigrants from two continents and as America than from Bulgaria and Romania??? Get out of town!
Texting this sitting on a 205 bus outsideDirty Dicks sitting next to a woman in a Niqab!
Voodoo poll currently has 70% of people saying they would vote against Green party's proposed 4.75% council tax increase in Brighton if it gets put to them in a referendum. You can watch the 'no confidence' debate streamed live from the Hove town hall!
As Fox says, the problem with the immigration debate is that it gets simplified into being either no immigration or completely open door.
The immigrants I have met are all hard working and I have no problems with them at all. The issues most people have are about a lack of control in the immigration system, in particular:
1) Being able to control the number of unskilled immigrants who come into the UK each year 2) Making sure that people are not able to come over and claim benefits or council housing without paying in (if someone works for 5 years here then needs claim that is fair enough) 3) Making sure the small minority of immigrants who come here and break the law can be deported 4) Making sure that immigrants learn English (or Welsh) and integrate.
If you ask people in other countries, like the US or Canada they would not think these demands unreasonable. Yet with our EU membership we cannot do 1 and 2. No. 3 we occasionally manage but it can take 10 years (see Abu Qatada). 4 might be slightly improving with a cut back on translation services
On one extreme you have the BNP, wanting a ban on immigration, and repatriation
On the other extreme you have people like Tim, Hugh. Anti frank and Mike Smithson, who want open borders and encourage immigrants to come (as long as they aren't from Asia, America or Africa)
In the middle sit ukip, wanting controlled immigration
I'm entirely comfortable with immigrants coming from Asia, America and Africa. There are more immigrants from each of those regions than from Romania and Bulgaria put together, which makes the current hysteria even more baffling.
More immigrants from two continents and as America than from Bulgaria and Romania??? Get out of town!
Texting this sitting on a 205 bus outsideDirty Dicks sitting next to a woman in a Niqab!
You're within 400 yards of me.
The same point can be made on the level of countries. There are near enough as many immigrants from Ghana as from Romania. Ghana is not significantly more populous than Romania.
As Fox says, the problem with the immigration debate is that it gets simplified into being either no immigration or completely open door.
The immigrants I have met are all hard working and I have no problems with them at all. The issues most people have are about a lack of control in the immigration system, in particular:
1) Being able to control the number of unskilled immigrants who come into the UK each year 2) Making sure that people are not able to come over and claim benefits or council housing without paying in (if someone works for 5 years here then needs claim that is fair enough) 3) Making sure the small minority of immigrants who come here and break the law can be deported 4) Making sure that immigrants learn English (or Welsh) and integrate.
If you ask people in other countries, like the US or Canada they would not think these demands unreasonable. Yet with our EU membership we cannot do 1 and 2. No. 3 we occasionally manage but it can take 10 years (see Abu Qatada). 4 might be slightly improving with a cut back on translation services
On one extreme you have the BNP, wanting a ban on immigration, and repatriation
On the other extreme you have people like Tim, Hugh. Anti frank and Mike Smithson, who want open borders and encourage immigrants to come (as long as they aren't from Asia, America or Africa)
In the middle sit ukip, wanting controlled immigration
I'm entirely comfortable with immigrants coming from Asia, America and Africa. There are more immigrants from each of those regions than from Romania and Bulgaria put together, which makes the current hysteria even more baffling.
More immigrants from two continents and as America than from Bulgaria and Romania??? Get out of town!
Texting this sitting on a 205 bus outsideDirty Dicks sitting next to a woman in a Niqab!
Get a grip PBTories! Step back , think about what you're saying, think where your once great party has ended up, what the noble Conservative politicians of the past would think about where you are on this!
Challenging the consensus of the metropolitan elite?
Oxfam has very broad popular support for what it does, it's not a creature of the metropolitan elite.
For what people think it does.
How effective, efficient or relevant to today are all legitimate points of discussion and criticism.
Get a grip PBTories! Step back , think about what you're saying, think where your once great party has ended up, what the noble Conservative politicians of the past would think about where you are on this!
Wilberforce and Shaftsbury weren't fans of big organisations with fat expense accounts.
If you want to see Tory charity in action come to our (free) exhibition
@Casino_Royale - We have a duty to acknowledge these concerns and have that dialogue. But both sides still tend to argue in a way that fails to listen and totally shuts out the other. I'd argue, unfortunately, that this is more pronounced on the pro-immigration side as the detestation of those who oppose immigration is so strong that it leads to a lack of any desire to even acknowledge, listen and understand the real concerns in the first place. And these people, unfortunately, dominate much of the mainstream media and (at least) two established Westminster parties.
And people wonder why voters are so disillusioned.
A very good post. However, those who believe in high immigration have as many insults thrown at them as they throw themselves. They are accused of being sneering, metropolitan elitists who are cut off from reality, have no interest in ordinary people and hate/dislike and/or are embarrassed by this country. As far as I can see, such views - which you find expressed on here pretty regularly - are pretty hate-filled.
@SouthamObserver - thanks. And you have a point. I don't excuse that at all. I only add that the emotional aspect of it may be born out of their frustration at their own powerlessness. But, even so, such behaviour probably only serves reinforce the beliefs of those minded to favour open-immigration.
Perhaps the controlled-immigration side need to show who's the bigger man by, not only making the first move, but also never rising to provocation?
As Fox says, the problem with the immigration debate is that it gets simplified into being either no immigration or completely open door.
The immigrants I have met are all hard working and I have no problems with them at all. The issues most people have are about a lack of control in the immigration system, in particular:
1) Being able to control the number of unskilled immigrants who come into the UK each year 2) Making sure that people are not able to come over and claim benefits or council housing without paying in (if someone works for 5 years here then needs claim that is fair enough) 3) Making sure the small minority of immigrants who come here and break the law can be deported 4) Making sure that immigrants learn English (or Welsh) and integrate.
If you ask people in other countries, like the US or Canada they would not think these demands unreasonable. Yet with our EU membership we cannot do 1 and 2. No. 3 we occasionally manage but it can take 10 years (see Abu Qatada). 4 might be slightly improving with a cut back on translation services
On one extreme you have the BNP, wanting a ban on immigration, and repatriation
On the other extreme you have people like Tim, Hugh. Anti frank and Mike Smithson, who want open borders and encourage immigrants to come (as long as they aren't from Asia, America or Africa)
In the middle sit ukip, wanting controlled immigration
I'm entirely comfortable with immigrants coming from Asia, America and Africa. There are more immigrants from each of those regions than from Romania and Bulgaria put together, which makes the current hysteria even more baffling.
More immigrants from two continents and as America than from Bulgaria and Romania??? Get out of town!
Texting this sitting on a 205 bus outsideDirty Dicks sitting next to a woman in a Niqab!
You're within 400 yards of me.
The same point can be made on the level of countries. There are near enough as many immigrants from Ghana as from Romania. Ghana is not significantly more populous than Romania.
I'm sure, it just surprises me that pro eu immigration people don't complain about the rules imposed on other foreigners. Why discriminate?
Get a grip PBTories! Step back , think about what you're saying, think where your once great party has ended up, what the noble Conservative politicians of the past would think about where you are on this!
Challenging the consensus of the metropolitan elite?
Oxfam has very broad popular support for what it does, it's not a creature of the metropolitan elite.
For what people think it does.
How effective, efficient out relevant to today are all legitimate points of discussion and criticism.
I would draw the line at calling it a "fake charity" myself.
Voodoo poll currently has 70% of people saying they would vote against Green party's proposed 4.75% council tax increase in Brighton if it gets put to them in a referendum. You can watch the 'no confidence' debate streamed live from the Hove town hall!
I dont think so but it's probably one of the liveliest constituency betting markets open at this stage (surely the only one where the favourite has changed already).
@Casino_Royale - We have a duty to acknowledge these concerns and have that dialogue. But both sides still tend to argue in a way that fails to listen and totally shuts out the other. I'd argue, unfortunately, that this is more pronounced on the pro-immigration side as the detestation of those who oppose immigration is so strong that it leads to a lack of any desire to even acknowledge, listen and understand the real concerns in the first place. And these people, unfortunately, dominate much of the mainstream media and (at least) two established Westminster parties.
And people wonder why voters are so disillusioned.
A very good post. However, those who believe in high immigration have as many insults thrown at them as they throw themselves. They are accused of being sneering, metropolitan elitists who are cut off from reality, have no interest in ordinary people and hate/dislike and/or are embarrassed by this country. As far as I can see, such views - which you find expressed on here pretty regularly - are pretty hate-filled.
@SouthamObserver - thanks. And you have a point. I don't excuse that at all. I only add that the emotional aspect of it may be born out of their frustration at their own powerlessness. But, even so, such behaviour probably only serves reinforce the beliefs of those minded to favour open-immigration.
Perhaps the controlled-immigration side need to show who's the bigger man by, not only making the first move, but also never rising to provocation?
It's something people feel strongly about. But when you have two sides throwing insults at each other, and making false claims about each other, you are never going to get a meaningful conversation.
"Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson has stepped down as an Oxfam ambassador after criticism of her support for Israeli company SodaStream.
The charity said the actress's role was incompatible with being an Oxfam global ambassador."
Oxfam a "fake charity". The things you learn from PBTories eh.
We are deep into PB Hodges territory when they are claiming Oxfam are a fake charity.
Accoding to Oxfams annual report only 35% of their income is freely given donations from the general public whilst 43% comes from various govt agencies doling out taxpayers money like a drunken sailor.
As Fox says, the problem with the immigration debate is that it gets simplified into being either no immigration or completely open door.
The immigrants I have met are all hard working and I have no problems with them at all. The issues most people have are about a lack of control in the immigration system, in particular:
1) Being able to control the number of unskilled immigrants who come into the UK each year 2) Making sure that people are not able to come over and claim benefits or council housing without paying in (if someone works for 5 years here then needs claim that is fair enough) 3) Making sure the small minority of immigrants who come here and break the law can be deported 4) Making sure that immigrants learn English (or Welsh) and integrate.
If you ask people in other countries, like the US or Canada they would not think these demands unreasonable. Yet with our EU membership we cannot do 1 and 2. No. 3 we occasionally manage but it can take 10 years (see Abu Qatada). 4 might be slightly improving with a cut back on translation services
On one extreme you have the BNP, wanting a ban on immigration, and repatriation
On the other extreme you have people like Tim, Hugh. Anti frank and Mike Smithson, who want open borders and encourage immigrants to come (as long as they aren't from Asia, America or Africa)
In the middle sit ukip, wanting controlled immigration
I'm entirely comfortable with immigrants coming from Asia, America and Africa. There are more immigrants from each of those regions than from Romania and Bulgaria put together, which makes the current hysteria even more baffling.
More immigrants from two continents and as America than from Bulgaria and Romania??? Get out of town!
Texting this sitting on a 205 bus outsideDirty Dicks sitting next to a woman in a Niqab!
You're within 400 yards of me.
The same point can be made on the level of countries. There are near enough as many immigrants from Ghana as from Romania. Ghana is not significantly more populous than Romania.
I'm sure, it just surprises me that pro eu immigration people don't complain about the rules imposed on other foreigners. Why discriminate?
At Aldgate now, our moment has passed!
The rules on non-EU immigrants are pretty arbitrary. But given that it's hard enough to maintain the freedom of movement within the EU that has served us so well, I'll stick to defending that first before going on to help more Ghanaians come to Britain.
"Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson has stepped down as an Oxfam ambassador after criticism of her support for Israeli company SodaStream.
The charity said the actress's role was incompatible with being an Oxfam global ambassador."
Oxfam a "fake charity". The things you learn from PBTories eh.
We are deep into PB Hodges territory when they are claiming Oxfam are a fake charity.
Accoding to Oxfams annual report only 35% of their income is freely given donations from the general public whilst 43% comes from various govt agencies doling out taxpayers money like a drunken sailor.
So yes, Oxfam is a fake charity.
Yes, the fact that DFID gave Oxfam money to respond to a cholera epidemic in Sierra Leone is nothing short of scandalous.
"Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson has stepped down as an Oxfam ambassador after criticism of her support for Israeli company SodaStream.
The charity said the actress's role was incompatible with being an Oxfam global ambassador."
Oxfam a "fake charity". The things you learn from PBTories eh.
We are deep into PB Hodges territory when they are claiming Oxfam are a fake charity.
Accoding to Oxfams annual report only 35% of their income is freely given donations from the general public whilst 43% comes from various govt agencies doling out taxpayers money like a drunken sailor.
So yes, Oxfam is a fake charity.
I have never seen a drunken sailor dole out taxpayers' cash. It must be quite a sight.
If it's a fake charity, presumably it can be shut down and all it will take is for someone to begin the process.
"Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson has stepped down as an Oxfam ambassador after criticism of her support for Israeli company SodaStream.
The charity said the actress's role was incompatible with being an Oxfam global ambassador."
Oxfam a "fake charity". The things you learn from PBTories eh.
We are deep into PB Hodges territory when they are claiming Oxfam are a fake charity.
Accoding to Oxfams annual report only 35% of their income is freely given donations from the general public whilst 43% comes from various govt agencies doling out taxpayers money like a drunken sailor.
So yes, Oxfam is a fake charity.
The state giving money to outside organisations rather than fulfilling the roles itself? How right wing.
"Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson has stepped down as an Oxfam ambassador after criticism of her support for Israeli company SodaStream.
The charity said the actress's role was incompatible with being an Oxfam global ambassador."
Oxfam a "fake charity". The things you learn from PBTories eh.
We are deep into PB Hodges territory when they are claiming Oxfam are a fake charity.
Accoding to Oxfams annual report only 35% of their income is freely given donations from the general public whilst 43% comes from various govt agencies doling out taxpayers money like a drunken sailor.
So yes, Oxfam is a fake charity.
I have never seen a drunken sailor dole out taxpayers' cash. It must be quite a sight.
If it's a fake charity, presumably it can be shut down and all it will take is for someone to begin the process.
We could write a draft complaint to the Charity Commission and invite pbc-ers to sign up. Under their real names.
"Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson has stepped down as an Oxfam ambassador after criticism of her support for Israeli company SodaStream.
The charity said the actress's role was incompatible with being an Oxfam global ambassador."
Oxfam a "fake charity". The things you learn from PBTories eh.
We are deep into PB Hodges territory when they are claiming Oxfam are a fake charity.
Accoding to Oxfams annual report only 35% of their income is freely given donations from the general public whilst 43% comes from various govt agencies doling out taxpayers money like a drunken sailor.
So yes, Oxfam is a fake charity.
I have never seen a drunken sailor dole out taxpayers' cash. It must be quite a sight.
Its amazing what some of these drunken sailors can get up to.
@Casino_Royale - We have a duty to acknowledge these concerns and have that dialogue. But both sides still tend to argue in a way that fails to listen and totally shuts out the other. I'd argue, unfortunately, that this is more pronounced on the pro-immigration side as the detestation of those who oppose immigration is so strong that it leads to a lack of any desire to even acknowledge, listen and understand the real concerns in the first place. And these people, unfortunately, dominate much of the mainstream media and (at least) two established Westminster parties.
And people wonder why voters are so disillusioned.
A very good post. However, those who believe in high immigration have as many insults thrown at them as they throw themselves. They are accused of being sneering, metropolitan elitists who are cut off from reality, have no interest in ordinary people and hate/dislike and/or are embarrassed by this country. As far as I can see, such views - which you find expressed on here pretty regularly - are pretty hate-filled.
@SouthamObserver - thanks. And you have a point. I don't excuse that at all. I only add that the emotional aspect of it may be born out of their frustration at their own powerlessness. But, even so, such behaviour probably only serves reinforce the beliefs of those minded to favour open-immigration.
Perhaps the controlled-immigration side need to show who's the bigger man by, not only making the first move, but also never rising to provocation?
-------------
You only need look at @hugh s posts to me and my responses, on this thread to see an example of not reacting to provocation, name calling and passive aggressive insinuations of racism
At least the old Tim just used to say it outright!
As Fox says, the problem with the immigration debate is that it gets simplified into being either no immigration or completely open door.
The immigrants I have met are all hard working and I have no problems with them at all. The issues most people have are about a lack of control in the immigration system, in particular:
1) Being able to control the number of unskilled immigrants who come into the UK each year 2) Making sure that people are not able to come over and claim benefits or council housing without paying in (if someone works for 5 years here then needs claim that is fair enough) 3) Making sure the small minority of immigrants who come here and break the law can be deported 4) Making sure that immigrants learn English (or Welsh) and integrate.
If you ask people in other countries, like the US or Canada they would not think these demands unreasonable. Yet with our EU membership we cannot do 1 and 2. No. 3 we occasionally manage but it can take 10 years (see Abu Qatada). 4 might be slightly improving with a cut back on translation services
On one extreme you have the BNP, wanting a ban on immigration, and repatriation
On the other extreme you have people like Tim, Hugh. Anti frank and Mike Smithson, who want open borders and encourage immigrants to come (as long as they aren't from Asia, America or Africa)
In the middle sit ukip, wanting controlled immigration
I'm entirely comfortable with immigrants coming from Asia, America and Africa. There are more immigrants from each of those regions than from Romania and Bulgaria put together, which makes the current hysteria even more baffling.
More immigrants from two continents and as America than from Bulgaria and Romania??? Get out of town!
Texting this sitting on a 205 bus outsideDirty Dicks sitting next to a woman in a Niqab!
@beckymbarrow: UK workers suffer the 'biggest fall' in real wages (adjusted for inflation) in G7, says @ONS. They have been 'falling markedly' since 2007.
"Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson has stepped down as an Oxfam ambassador after criticism of her support for Israeli company SodaStream.
The charity said the actress's role was incompatible with being an Oxfam global ambassador."
Oxfam a "fake charity". The things you learn from PBTories eh.
We are deep into PB Hodges territory when they are claiming Oxfam are a fake charity.
Accoding to Oxfams annual report only 35% of their income is freely given donations from the general public whilst 43% comes from various govt agencies doling out taxpayers money like a drunken sailor.
So yes, Oxfam is a fake charity.
Yes, the fact that DFID gave Oxfam money to respond to a cholera epidemic in Sierra Leone is nothing short of scandalous.
Quite so.
Clearly, only a third of Oxfams income is freely given benevolence or generousity towards others.
The largest part of their income comes from enforced extraction under threat of force.
Hence Oxfam are not a real charity but a fake charity.
isam - yes, and we must continue to do that if we want the more dismissive/aggressive open-immigration proponents to be eventually be recognised for what they are when they base their arguments on the partial, selective (and occasionally exaggerated) use of facts in just one-dimension, as they (regrettably) so often do now.
"Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson has stepped down as an Oxfam ambassador after criticism of her support for Israeli company SodaStream.
The charity said the actress's role was incompatible with being an Oxfam global ambassador."
Oxfam a "fake charity". The things you learn from PBTories eh.
We are deep into PB Hodges territory when they are claiming Oxfam are a fake charity.
Accoding to Oxfams annual report only 35% of their income is freely given donations from the general public whilst 43% comes from various govt agencies doling out taxpayers money like a drunken sailor.
So yes, Oxfam is a fake charity.
LOL!
Am I right in saying that David Cameron reads PB? I remember seeing it sometime somewhere?
If he reads this thread, and after today in Parliament, he'll be shaking his head in dismay at the wretched state of much of the Party he leads, reaching for a stiff drink...
I hope you are not implying that I'm a supporter or memeber of the conservative party.
Withdraw your scurrilous insult or I shall demand satisfaction!!!
"Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson has stepped down as an Oxfam ambassador after criticism of her support for Israeli company SodaStream.
The charity said the actress's role was incompatible with being an Oxfam global ambassador."
Oxfam a "fake charity". The things you learn from PBTories eh.
We are deep into PB Hodges territory when they are claiming Oxfam are a fake charity.
Accoding to Oxfams annual report only 35% of their income is freely given donations from the general public whilst 43% comes from various govt agencies doling out taxpayers money like a drunken sailor.
So yes, Oxfam is a fake charity.
Yes, the fact that DFID gave Oxfam money to respond to a cholera epidemic in Sierra Leone is nothing short of scandalous.
Quite so.
Clearly, only a third of Oxfams income is freely given benevolence or generousity towards others.
The largest part of their income comes from enforced extraction under threat of force.
Hence Oxfam are not a real charity but a fake charity.
Just because an organisation gets involved in service provision (presumably only where its own trustees and the contracting authority have judged that it's consistent with its charitable aims and value for money) doesnt means its charitable role is nullified. Clearly the Charity Commission doesnt think so anyway so your accusation of 'fake charity' would seem to be wide of the mark.
isam: I am not in favour of high levels of immigration, or in favour of low levels of immigration. I am in favour of letting people decide where they want to live, whether it is on this island, or someplace else
"Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson has stepped down as an Oxfam ambassador after criticism of her support for Israeli company SodaStream.
The charity said the actress's role was incompatible with being an Oxfam global ambassador."
Oxfam a "fake charity". The things you learn from PBTories eh.
We are deep into PB Hodges territory when they are claiming Oxfam are a fake charity.
Accoding to Oxfams annual report only 35% of their income is freely given donations from the general public whilst 43% comes from various govt agencies doling out taxpayers money like a drunken sailor.
So yes, Oxfam is a fake charity.
LOL!
Am I right in saying that David Cameron reads PB? I remember seeing it sometime somewhere?
Yes he does. He's apparently devastated that he didn't play his political cards correctly and ended up his career as PM, rather than an anonymous expert on PB. I'm not sure he'll ever come to terms with his failure.
isam: I am not in favour of high levels of immigration, or in favour of low levels of immigration. I am in favour of letting people decide where they want to live, whether it is on this island, or someplace else
Again (I think for the third time Robert) I have to ask if you believe that companies that demand we allow immigrants in so they can have cheaper labour and improve their profit margins, should be held responsible for the entire cost of those immigrants if they then lay them off. It seems only fair that those who want to benefit from mass migration should also should the associated costs.
Get a grip PBTories! Step back , think about what you're saying, think where your once great party has ended up, what the noble Conservative politicians of the past would think about where you are on this!
Wilberforce and Shaftsbury weren't fans of big organisations with fat expense accounts.
If you want to see Tory charity in action come to our (free) exhibition
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25969766
"Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson has stepped down as an Oxfam ambassador after criticism of her support for Israeli company SodaStream.
The charity said the actress's role was incompatible with being an Oxfam global ambassador."
Labour will be desperately spinning government splits to prevent scrutiny of which way they have actually jumped on this...
It's not just the tories who are looking a shambles today. Clegg's stepped right in it. Yet again.
But at least it's not yet more questions about Rennard I suppose.
Just put the army in No 1 dress, line them up in ranks and get them to march to their bands as you do the hard work.
Coerce or bribe the bands into playing a few Naval sea shanties and it will relieve the burdens of labour and add to the jollity of the occasion for all.
It might sound like an expensive solution but once you take into account the boost to tourist revenues it should only work out at around £0.60 per person per day.
UKIP will gain 35 seats.; up two from last month.
Now I must rest the old pupils. LOL
So withdrawal from the EU. It's the only way that's going to happen. UKIP is right.
It depends on how big your life savings are and when you live now, doesn't it?
PB Hodges reaction - Bad day for Labour.
If MPs all toe the party line then it's a flock of sheep, if they don't it's a shambles.
I wish I were rich enough to be in favour of mass immigration
I only give to Donkey Sanctuaries these days.
It was seeing Michael Foot struggling with his walking stick at a Hampstead bus stop that caused me to change.
Voluntary income £111.5m (including £11.2m from DFID which counts as voluntary)
Total net trading income £22.5m
Income from government, institutional donors and other public authorities £162.1m
Money spent on campaigning and advocacy £21.7m
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get-involved/~/media/784640467B084C6EBD32D278A28D9FF1.ashx
You keep putting your money in their tin though pootle.
Overall I favour remaining in the EU, but would want to see it significantly reformed. I am a LD (and rather appalled at Ashdowns supine behaviour over the Jesus and Mo cartoons on Newsnight last night)
http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry/nationalists-ruling-out-currency-union-by-default
If a charity gets too large, perhaps the Charities Commission should step in and split it up into smaller, more competitive units run by volunteers?
The world's poor and starving might stand a better chance of getting fed if there were a couple of 'Challengers' to Oxfam.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2014/01/the-battle-for-threadneedle-street/
To summarise, the opposition is voting down something because they’ve been told it’s illegal by a government that’s not voting it down. Which makes sense.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/breaking-labour-to-vote-against-raab-amendment/
If you want yo tell all the sparks I knock about with that mass immigration of Eastern European labour has been good for their pay packet, all the best.
£150 a day down to £85 a day ain't so great, except for the bosses
Ah passive aggressive lefties, what a delight
The immigrants I have met are all hard working and I have no problems with them at all. The issues most people have are about a lack of control in the immigration system, in particular:
1) Being able to control the number of unskilled immigrants who come into the UK each year
2) Making sure that people are not able to come over and claim benefits or council housing without paying in (if someone works for 5 years here then needs claim that is fair enough)
3) Making sure the small minority of immigrants who come here and break the law can be deported
4) Making sure that immigrants learn English (or Welsh) and integrate.
If you ask people in other countries, like the US or Canada they would not think these demands unreasonable. Yet with our EU membership we cannot do 1 and 2. No. 3 we occasionally manage but it can take 10 years (see Abu Qatada). 4 might be slightly improving with a cut back on translation services
I think we should close down Oxfam, sack all their workers and give whatever funds they have to pay off the debts of poor nations.
I am all in favour of big business seconding executives to charities in lieu of donations. A three to five year term would be sufficient.
That way a larger proportion of donor funds from the public would go towards supporting the charitable cause and charities would cease to have its management used as a parking place for failed politicians.
The efficiency and effectiveness of charity management would improve.
It would also prevent the massive waste of donor funds used in political lobbying.
Not that I object to political lobbying as an activity. I just believe it shouldn't benefit from the tax concessions properly given to mainstream charitable activity.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100257423/three-cheers-for-scarlett-johanssons-stand-against-the-ugly-illiberal-boycott-israel-movement/
On the other extreme you have people like Tim, Hugh. Anti frank and Mike Smithson, who want open borders and encourage immigrants to come (as long as they aren't from Asia, America or Africa)
In the middle sit ukip, wanting controlled immigration
Answer: Significantly higher and many services would remain not done. The Brits are supremely capable of NOT wanting to do some types of work !
It's not only bosses who need sparks.
My point is that all monies given to charities that purport to help the poor overseas should be given to the governments of those countries directly.
Lets cut out the (sometimes very well paid and highly politicised) Middlemen The Middlemen who are sitting on billions while they decide on a country's behalf whether a project is 'worth it' or not. The middlemen who are sitting on that money to guarantee their own salaries and pensions.
I read years ago that UK charities alone are sitting on GBP80bn.
The trouble is it kills any real debate about a sensible balance. There are very few subjects you can't engage these excellent posters upon. Unfortunately, immigration is one of them. Europe is possibly another.
Any rational person ought to be able to soberly calculate that there's some merit to both sides of the argument. We need to focus on striking a reasonable balance - flexing immigration levels according to both economic and socio-cultural factors - but this dialogue is rarely present. Any fool should be able to work out that immigration isn't just about the money; we're talking about people of all things. Of course, I'd argue that we got that wrong over the last 15 years, and ~4 million+ net immigrants during that time is too many. Obviously, zero would be ridiculous too. There's a level that will both benefit the economy, and will be broadly accepted by society, even welcomed. But people have to be consulted, and genuinely feel consulted, confident its under control and periodically engaged on its sustainability.
We have a duty to acknowledge these concerns and have that dialogue. But both sides still tend to argue in a way that fails to listen and totally shuts out the other. I'd argue, unfortunately, that this is more pronounced on the pro-immigration side as the detestation of those who oppose immigration is so strong that it leads to a lack of any desire to even acknowledge, listen and understand the real concerns in the first place. And these people, unfortunately, dominate much of the mainstream media and (at least) two established Westminster parties.
And people wonder why voters are so disillusioned.
You mean straight to the President's Swiss Bank account ? I mean Dubai account.
The problem is that they often end up seeing the 'engagement' as an objective in itself - and they often become divorced from the people that they are supposed to be helping.
There again, our mission is to identify and support for 'dynamic individuals and charities that are developing innovative solution to long-standing problems'. We want to encourage the risk takers in the charity sector, not the Oxfams and RSPCAs of the world.
I keep an open mind, but the impression I have from my neck of the woods is that there may be more than a little truth in this suspicion - at least two substantial Yes meetings, one with Mr Canavan, versus nothing more than a few No leaflets on the local Labour party stand (as well as the raffle and much else).
. Fortunately, an empirical (though not without warning) check by independent (!) inspectors is under way today - and I look forward to the results.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-honesty-patrol/
The wider question here is to what extent the No Campaign can claim to be a truly grassroots one - and therefore what that might imply, bearing in mind the strength of the Labour and LD parties in Scotland, not to mention the Tories (still much stronger than Westminster implies, thanks to FPTP).
The unpalatable truth for me, is that the UK Fire and Rescue Service is vastly underutilised, and when Sky News are shouting "Army mobilised to flooding", during a time of industrial action, for us, its frustrating.
Since the major terrorist attacks during this century, we've had a truckload of money shoved at National Resilience, and we have a superbly trained and equipped Service, that doesn't get used as much as it should. The government should just call it a national emergency, and mobilise UK USAR teams down there, with more boats, HPVs, hose layers and more importantly, experts ready and able to get involved. The army definitely has a role, but if you need experts in water rescue, pumping, even disaster relief, you need to be talking to Firefighter Smith, not Private Smith.
I'm of the opinion that we should have a national Rescue Service, combining Fire, USAR, Ambulance, even Mines and Cave Rescue, Mountain Rescue, diving capability, maybe even Lifeboats. Instead we have a piecemeal approach.
Worth comparing that view with the shrieks of indignation on the bedroom tax when a small minority of people were perceived as being harshly done by, despite the manifest fairness of the change in its totality.
However, let's not get carried away about the impact of said shambles on voting intentions which is precisely nowt. No one is going to read about this event and change their mind on who to vote for - indeed most punters won't know the issues the people or what happened
However, what it does is encourage the foaming dog fever wing of the pparliamentary Conservative Party (most of them) that Cameron doesn't get it, isn't I'd them or for them, and that like Tony Benn on Labour benches past they must save the party by destroying it electorally. What frootloop policies they try to impose at the next showdown and the next and the next - that's where we get the impact on voting as middle of the road punters come to the remarkable conclusion that Tories are bonkers.
And people wonder why voters are so disillusioned.
A very good post. However, those who believe in high immigration have as many insults thrown at them as they throw themselves. They are accused of being sneering, metropolitan elitists who are cut off from reality, have no interest in ordinary people and hate/dislike and/or are embarrassed by this country. As far as I can see, such views - which you find expressed on here pretty regularly - are pretty hate-filled.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10958590.The_great_council_tax_debate__The_background/
Texting this sitting on a 205 bus outsideDirty Dicks sitting next to a woman in a Niqab!
The same point can be made on the level of countries. There are near enough as many immigrants from Ghana as from Romania. Ghana is not significantly more populous than Romania.
How effective, efficient or relevant to today are all legitimate points of discussion and criticism.
If you want to see Tory charity in action come to our (free) exhibition
http://www.twotempleplace.org/exhibitions/current-exhibition
@SouthamObserver - thanks. And you have a point. I don't excuse that at all. I only add that the emotional aspect of it may be born out of their frustration at their own powerlessness. But, even so, such behaviour probably only serves reinforce the beliefs of those minded to favour open-immigration.
Perhaps the controlled-immigration side need to show who's the bigger man by, not only making the first move, but also never rising to provocation?
At Aldgate now, our moment has passed!
Perhaps the controlled-immigration side need to show who's the bigger man by, not only making the first move, but also never rising to provocation?
It's something people feel strongly about. But when you have two sides throwing insults at each other, and making false claims about each other, you are never going to get a meaningful conversation.
So yes, Oxfam is a fake charity.
If it's a fake charity, presumably it can be shut down and all it will take is for someone to begin the process.
Perhaps the controlled-immigration side need to show who's the bigger man by, not only making the first move, but also never rising to provocation?
-------------
You only need look at @hugh s posts to me and my responses, on this thread to see an example of not reacting to provocation, name calling and passive aggressive insinuations of racism
At least the old Tim just used to say it outright!
Which side can spin this first?
Yeh typical left wing neo colonialist, patronising (and possibly racist) claptrap.
Those dear fuzzy wuzzies can't manage their own money doncha know?? it's much better when we spend it for them, for the time being.
'Course, we never have corruption in Islington.
Clearly, only a third of Oxfams income is freely given benevolence or generousity towards others.
The largest part of their income comes from enforced extraction under threat of force.
Hence Oxfam are not a real charity but a fake charity.
Withdraw your scurrilous insult or I shall demand satisfaction!!!
I have experience of working for a volunteer charity (raising money for a school for kids with very special needs).
The local rotarians gave us two grand no questions asked. All we ever got from big professional charities was a bunch of forms to fill in.
'Who makes you the arbiter of what the average voter thinks?' Dom Raab giving some to @jonsnowC4