Jump to content

OPINION POLLS: Labour maintain lead

Danny
in News and Politics

Featured Replies

  • Replies 1k
  • Views 61.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

 

Hot air really, the plan is so watered down

 

3 months before you can claim benefits? it should be 3 years, no one should get benefits of any sort who were not born here till they have paid 3 years NI contributions

 

The 6 month thing is so open to abuse too, they can just apply for loads of jobs in the final month and pass the 'good chance of getting work' test

 

Some of those things wont be on the statute book for months even years too

 

Don't see this boosting us

Craig, how exactly would someone be able to live for four months without benefits if that was all they were coming here for?

 

Also, JSA payments are conditional on continuous searching for work every two weeks. You couldn't go five months without applying for work and then just apply for loads in the last month.

Edited by Cassandra

What i would have bought in

 

1) 3 year ban on all immigrants claiming benefits of any sort, once paid 3 years NI then entitled to benefits

 

2) Passing of a English exam before being entitled to settle in UK

 

3) Immediate deportation of any immigrant committing a violent, sexual or theft crime

 

4) Anyone who has not secured employment within 6 months of entering UK is deported

Craig, how exactly would someone be able to live for four months without benefits if that was all they were coming here for?

 

Simple, stay in home country, we have enough home grown unemployed without foreigners adding to the total

Simple, stay in home country, we have enough home grown unemployed without foreigners adding to the total

That....doesn't answer my question. You were implying three months was too short. My point was nobody would be able to live that long without benefits if they were just coming here for benefits, hence there'd be little difference between three months and three years.

Edited by Cassandra

That....doesn't answer my question. You were implying three months was too short. My point was nobody would be able to live that long without benefits if they were just coming here for benefits, hence there'd be little difference between three months and three years.

 

I welcome anyone that is coming here to work and makes a determined effort

 

What i want to deter is those that are coming here purely for the benefits with no effort to find work, I have nothing but admiration for Poles, but many people including a former labour home secretary fear a lot of 'Roma' will arrive on our shores who don't have the same work ethic, maybe those fears of Blunkett etc are unfounded, but if they are here for benefits then they need stopping

Again, my point is that three months without benefits WOULD stop those people, because there's no way they could live for three months without benefits if that was all they were coming here for.
Again, my point is that three months without benefits WOULD stop those people, because there's no way they could live for three months without benefits if that was all they were coming here for.

 

They could potentially resort to crime and begging, sure one of the new rules mention begging but there is a difference between doing it and getting caught, likewise if they steal/burgle, they have to be caught which doesn't happen a lot of the time in this country even with home grown criminals

  • Author
I don't really see how that would lead to a boost in anti-immigration sentiment, given that's a measure which works against the accusation of 'they're coming over here and taking all our benefits' etc.

 

The benefits thing is bad enough, but the worst part is the idea that any immigrant who's found sleeping rough will be deported.

 

But anyway, the point is that when these things are said by mainstream politicians and reported by the BBC, it legitimises anti-immigrant sentiment in the minds of more people. By saying it would "work against the accusation of 'they're coming over here and taking all our benefits' etc." - assuming you mean you think it would end that complaint, I don't think it will do that at all, it will probably have the exact opposite effect. Look at France, the Socialist government there has been busily deporting Romanians all year ... has it improved the Socialists' poll ratings? No. Has it killed off the far Right? Hell no -- it's sent the Front National soaring into first place into the polls. When people think it's legitimate to bash immigrants (which is the effect that will be had by reasonable, mainstream figures spouting this stuff), people are going to go the for the full-fat version of bigoted, xenophobic anti-immigrant sentiment, UKIP in this case.

The benefits thing is bad enough, but the worst part is the idea that any immigrant who's found sleeping rough will be deported.

 

But anyway, the point is that when these things are said by mainstream politicians and reported by the BBC, it legitimises anti-immigrant sentiment in the minds of more people. By saying it would "work against the accusation of 'they're coming over here and taking all our benefits' etc." - assuming you mean you think it would end that complaint, I don't think it will do that at all, it will probably have the exact opposite effect. Look at France, the Socialist government there has been busily deporting Romanians all year ... has it improved the Socialists' poll ratings? No. Has it killed off the far Right? Hell no -- it's sent the Front National soaring into first place into the polls. When people think it's legitimate to bash immigrants (which is the effect that will be had by reasonable, mainstream figures spouting this stuff), people are going to go the for the full-fat version of bigoted, xenophobic anti-immigrant sentiment, UKIP in this case.

 

We are decades behind France in racism/far right nationalism

 

About 15 years ago Jean Marie Le Pen, a racist bigot, nearly won the presidency, his daughter could be a future president

 

Whereas our equivalent, Griffin and now Farage have done nothing in general elections and barely even 10% of the public support UKIP and many of them could drift back to the mainstream parties in 2015

 

The far right is an insignificance in this country, unlike France

We are decades behind France in racism/far right nationalism

 

About 15 years ago Jean Marie Le Pen, a racist bigot, nearly won the presidency, his daughter could be a future president

 

Whereas our equivalent, Griffin and now Farage have done nothing in general elections and barely even 10% of the public support UKIP and many of them could drift back to the mainstream parties in 2015

 

The far right is an insignificance in this country, unlike France

Le Pen came nowhere near winning the presidency. He got to the run-off and was defeated heavily.

Le Pen came nowhere near winning the presidency. He got to the run-off and was defeated heavily.

 

That on its own was significant

 

It would be the equivalent of UKIP coming 2nd in a general election, never going to happen

  • Author
We are decades behind France in racism/far right nationalism

 

About 15 years ago Jean Marie Le Pen, a racist bigot, nearly won the presidency, his daughter could be a future president

 

Whereas our equivalent, Griffin and now Farage have done nothing in general elections and barely even 10% of the public support UKIP and many of them could drift back to the mainstream parties in 2015

 

The far right is an insignificance in this country, unlike France

 

That may be, but relatively the Front National are still reaching new heights (far higher than they ever reached under Jean Marie Le Pen), partly because of the anti-establishment fever that's in virtually every political system right now, and partly because even mainstream people now think it's respectable to bash immigrants precisely because they've been given the green-light by the leaders of the mainstream.

 

Clegg's comments today, about how these measures are necessary because "otherwise we surrender the debate about immigration to the UKIPs of this world", particularly annoyed me - not only is it totally unprincipled to do something you believe is wrong (and Labour are also totally guilty of this), it's also totally counterproductive and a fail on its own terms.

Edited by Danny

That on its own was significant

 

It would be the equivalent of UKIP coming 2nd in a general election, never going to happen

He came second because the left wing vote was split between a number of candidates. He gained next to no votes between the first and second round.

They could potentially resort to crime and begging, sure one of the new rules mention begging but there is a difference between doing it and getting caught, likewise if they steal/burgle, they have to be caught which doesn't happen a lot of the time in this country even with home grown criminals

Why on earth would they spend the money that they clearly don't have if they need to resort to begging/crime on coming here? Germany is far closer and far richer.

 

The benefits thing is bad enough, but the worst part is the idea that any immigrant who's found sleeping rough will be deported.

 

But anyway, the point is that when these things are said by mainstream politicians and reported by the BBC, it legitimises anti-immigrant sentiment in the minds of more people. By saying it would "work against the accusation of 'they're coming over here and taking all our benefits' etc." - assuming you mean you think it would end that complaint, I don't think it will do that at all, it will probably have the exact opposite effect. Look at France, the Socialist government there has been busily deporting Romanians all year ... has it improved the Socialists' poll ratings? No. Has it killed off the far Right? Hell no -- it's sent the Front National soaring into first place into the polls. When people think it's legitimate to bash immigrants (which is the effect that will be had by reasonable, mainstream figures spouting this stuff), people are going to go the for the full-fat version of bigoted, xenophobic anti-immigrant sentiment, UKIP in this case.

I don't think it would end that complaint, but I'm saying stories like this don't really do much with regards to immigration sentiments because I think they're fairly solidified by now - who doesn't have a fairly settled view on immigration by this point? It's been an issue for over ten years now.

 

While I think someone coming out strongly in the major parties in favour of immigration would influence views, I think the rhetoric has been so unbendingly negative around immigration since about 2005 that there isn't really much that could happen in the next two years that would increase anti-immigration views by much, short of a Mick Philpotts-style cause celebre.

 

We are decades behind France in racism/far right nationalism

I'm not sure what mindset it reveals that you consider us to be decades behind on this rather than decades ahead.

I'm not sure what mindset it reveals that you consider us to be decades behind on this rather than decades ahead.

 

The mindset of someone who doesn't over analyse every single term/word

 

I have spoken positively about immigration in this thread

The mindset of someone who doesn't over analyse every single term/word

 

I have spoken positively about immigration in this thread

I hope your job doesn't require any sort of attention to detail then.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.