Those people already get hammered and take a higher rate of tax.
Why can the emphasis not be on creating jobs, creating opportunity to gain skills, creating opportunity to learn business skills. Better opportunity and availability for access to affordable loans to start a business if you have an idea that could drive growth. A business that could create more jobs and contribute to a better economy.
The local hand car wash has been set up by 5 polish guys who do a great job and are known throughout the area. Everyone uses them. Why didn't 5 locals do that instead?
Not everyone is able to do something like that - but that is what taxpayers money should help out on. We already have a benefits system - people act like it doesn't even exist
Damo, mate. There is this thing called Brexit, I dunno whether you have heard about it, but it means these guys are no longer wanted in the UK, they will be off home soon, so no need to spend taxpayers money on their like.
They are wanted, it's controlled immigration that is wanted, not uncontrolled immigration. People are not calling for repatriation. Please don't lie, even if it is tongue in cheek.
So you think under new immigration rules post Brexit that these five "unskilled" (that's an assumption) polish lads who had the balls and drive to set up what is obviously a good business will be allowed in to the country ?
Those people already get hammered and take a higher rate of tax.
Why can the emphasis not be on creating jobs, creating opportunity to gain skills, creating opportunity to learn business skills. Better opportunity and availability for access to affordable loans to start a business if you have an idea that could drive growth. A business that could create more jobs and contribute to a better economy.
The local hand car wash has been set up by 5 polish guys who do a great job and are known throughout the area. Everyone uses them. Why didn't 5 locals do that instead?
Not everyone is able to do something like that - but that is what taxpayers money should help out on. We already have a benefits system - people act like it doesn't even exist
Damo, mate. There is this thing called Brexit, I dunno whether you have heard about it, but it means these guys are no longer wanted in the UK, they will be off home soon, so no need to spend taxpayers money on their like.
They are wanted, it's controlled immigration that is wanted, not uncontrolled immigration. People are not calling for repatriation. Please don't lie, even if it is tongue in cheek.
So you think under new immigration rules post Brexit that these five "unskilled" (that's an assumption) polish lads who had the balls and drive to set up what is obviously a good business will be allowed in to the country ?
Or... would these enterprising, ambitious, English-speaking entrepreneurs choose to take their chance in risky, Brexit London or, say, stable, welcoming Dublin?
Those people already get hammered and take a higher rate of tax.
Why can the emphasis not be on creating jobs, creating opportunity to gain skills, creating opportunity to learn business skills. Better opportunity and availability for access to affordable loans to start a business if you have an idea that could drive growth. A business that could create more jobs and contribute to a better economy.
The local hand car wash has been set up by 5 polish guys who do a great job and are known throughout the area. Everyone uses them. Why didn't 5 locals do that instead?
Not everyone is able to do something like that - but that is what taxpayers money should help out on. We already have a benefits system - people act like it doesn't even exist
Damo, mate. There is this thing called Brexit, I dunno whether you have heard about it, but it means these guys are no longer wanted in the UK, they will be off home soon, so no need to spend taxpayers money on their like.
They are wanted, it's controlled immigration that is wanted, not uncontrolled immigration. People are not calling for repatriation. Please don't lie, even if it is tongue in cheek.
So you think under new immigration rules post Brexit that these five "unskilled" (that's an assumption) polish lads who had the balls and drive to set up what is obviously a good business will be allowed in to the country ?
Or... would these enterprising, ambitious, English-speaking entrepreneurs choose to take their chance in risky, Brexit London or, say, stable, welcoming Dublin?
The trouble is that there are numerous voters with the mind set of 'Let them go to Dublin. It will open vacancies for five other unskilled workers, and will remove 10 to 15 children from our over stretched education system, and 20 individuals from the healthcare system, free up social housing etc etc.
We all know all the counter arguments, but it seems there is a national groundswell towards the UKIP point of view.
Those people already get hammered and take a higher rate of tax.
Why can the emphasis not be on creating jobs, creating opportunity to gain skills, creating opportunity to learn business skills. Better opportunity and availability for access to affordable loans to start a business if you have an idea that could drive growth. A business that could create more jobs and contribute to a better economy.
The local hand car wash has been set up by 5 polish guys who do a great job and are known throughout the area. Everyone uses them. Why didn't 5 locals do that instead?
Not everyone is able to do something like that - but that is what taxpayers money should help out on. We already have a benefits system - people act like it doesn't even exist
Damo, mate. There is this thing called Brexit, I dunno whether you have heard about it, but it means these guys are no longer wanted in the UK, they will be off home soon, so no need to spend taxpayers money on their like.
They are wanted, it's controlled immigration that is wanted, not uncontrolled immigration. People are not calling for repatriation. Please don't lie, even if it is tongue in cheek.
So you think under new immigration rules post Brexit that these five "unskilled" (that's an assumption) polish lads who had the balls and drive to set up what is obviously a good business will be allowed in to the country ?
Or... would these enterprising, ambitious, English-speaking entrepreneurs choose to take their chance in risky, Brexit London or, say, stable, welcoming Dublin?
The trouble is that there are numerous voters with the mind set of 'Let them go to Dublin. It will open vacancies for five other unskilled workers, and will remove 10 to 15 children from our over stretched education system, and 20 individuals from the healthcare system, free up social housing etc etc.
We all know all the counter arguments, but it seems there is a national groundswell towards the UKIP point of view.
Let's imagine that the immigration controls you presumably support, had been implemented 10 years ago. Since you support them, and are an intelligent bloke, you presumably have a view about how they would actually work in practice; the criteria, etc.
Under these rules do you suppose the following would have gained entry:
1. Damo's enterprising Poles? 2. The many rich Russians who have bought up property in central London, and appear not to be subject to Russian laws and taxes.? 3. A sundry group of Somalis representing the very many who have somehow evaded our brilliant Border Police and settled here ( I am not referring here to asylum seekers)
Who would have got in, and who not, under this policy? Why, and how, in each case?
Let's imagine that the immigration controls you presumably support, had been implemented 10 years ago. Since you support them, and are an intelligent bloke, you presumably have a view about how they would actually work in practice; the criteria, etc.
Under these rules do you suppose the following would have gained entry:
1. Damo's enterprising Poles? 2. The many rich Russians who have bought up property in central London, and appear not to be subject to Russian laws and taxes.? 3. A sundry group of Somalis representing the very many who have somehow evaded our brilliant Border Police and settled here ( I am not referring here to asylum seekers)
Who would have got in, and who not, under this policy? Why, and how, in each case?
Ending access to the welfare state for non UK nationals (and tightening rules allowing European passport holders to claim British citizenship) would have diverted most of the Somali community elsewhere. Taxing the second homes of Foreign nationals more stringently would have discouraged 'hot' foreign money inflating high end London property. Neither policy would discourage the enterprising young men looking to make their fortune who you bring up.
Let's imagine that the immigration controls you presumably support, had been implemented 10 years ago. Since you support them, and are an intelligent bloke, you presumably have a view about how they would actually work in practice; the criteria, etc.
Under these rules do you suppose the following would have gained entry:
1. Damo's enterprising Poles? 2. The many rich Russians who have bought up property in central London, and appear not to be subject to Russian laws and taxes.? 3. A sundry group of Somalis representing the very many who have somehow evaded our brilliant Border Police and settled here ( I am not referring here to asylum seekers)
Who would have got in, and who not, under this policy? Why, and how, in each case?
Ending access to the welfare state for non UK nationals (and tightening rules allowing European passport holders to claim British citizenship) would have diverted most of the Somali community elsewhere. Taxing the second homes of Foreign nationals more stringently would have discouraged 'hot' foreign money inflating high end London property. Neither policy would discourage the enterprising young men looking to make their fortune who you bring up.
.
Of course your first two points could easily have been accomplished without Brexit, as was pointed out to you myriad times ( although I am not sure second homes is the beginning or end of the Russian issue)
More importantly:
What, in the application form would have identified Damo's Poles as "enterprising" and distinguished them from my Mum's cleaning girl?
Do we think the Tories will make good on their manifesto pledges?
This from Inside Housing, in respect of the 2015 Tory manifesto:
The Conservatives have set out their housing election pledges today, making it a good time to look back at the progress made on the last set of election pledges in 2015.
Two years is a long time in politics and the changing of the guard from David Cameron to Theresa May seems to have left two major housing casualties in its wake. Starter Homes stutter
The major housing policy two years ago was the promise to build 200,000 Starter Homes exclusively for the under-40s.
This passed into law last year but in the recent Housing White Paper ministers confirmed they had dropped the target and the 200,000 homes would be made up of shared ownership, Help to Buy and Right to Buy alongside Starter Homes.
The elusive Right to Buy
The biggest announcement before the 2015 election was the Voluntary Right to Buy scheme for housing associations, funded by forcing councils to sell off their high-value homes.
Despite pilots with five housing associations wrapping up last year, there is still no word on when the nationwide scheme will get off the ground, despite Mr Cameron promising a roll-out within 100 days of his new government. Councils have been told they will not have to pay a high-value asset levy this financial year.
Perhaps crucially, there was no mention of the scheme in the Conservative manifesto published today.
And the rest…
When it comes to first-time buyers, the 2015 policies have fared better, with the extension of the Help to Buy equity loan and the Help to Buy ISA still in place.
The Help to Buy mortgage guarantee was meant to remain in place until the beginning of 2017, and chancellor Philip Hammond accordingly announced it would be wound up at the end of 2016.
The pledge to give local people more control over planning has crystallised in the Neighbourhood Planning Act, which strengthens neighbourhood plans.
The London Land Commission was created as promised and given a mandate to “identify and release all surplus brownfield land owned by the public sector”. The commission is up and running, but has only had three meetings since its inception, the last of which was 16 months ago. Labour’s Sadiq Khan mocked its progress after winning control of City Hall in 2016, for including sites such 10 Downing Street and the British Museum in its register.
Pay to Stay, the controversial policy to make council tenants earning £31,000 or more pay higher rents, was quietly dropped despite becoming law – although this was announced by then-chancellor George Osborne in the first Budget after the 2015 election and was never a manifesto pledge.
Housing minister Gavin Barwell said Pay to Stay would no longer be compulsory and councils of all political persuasions subsequently fell over themselves to announce they would not be using the policy.
The Economist reckons that there was all sorts of old toot in the 2015 Conservative manifesto because they didn't expect to win and so it didn't matter what they put in it.
This one should have been different. I mentioned earlier that I thought that the Tories were deliberately delaying publication because people only remember the last thing that was being discussed on the TV/in the papers.
If that was actually the case, they have got it completely wrong. They should have been the first to publish and to have hoped that everyone would forget what a pile of uninspiring crap their manifesto contained. Add in the seemingly bonkers attempts to antagonise their main voter base, and they might actually be in trouble. It begs the question, why were they so specific on the dementia tax? We all know something has got to give but..... Why not just say that upon election they would undertake to re-visit Sir Andrew Dilnot's recommendations together with all the other masses of reports/reviews and make a decision within the next parliament? It's like they got Thomas Driesen to write the manifesto and run the campaign. Shoddy in the extreme.
Let's imagine that the immigration controls you presumably support, had been implemented 10 years ago. Since you support them, and are an intelligent bloke, you presumably have a view about how they would actually work in practice; the criteria, etc.
Under these rules do you suppose the following would have gained entry:
1. Damo's enterprising Poles? 2. The many rich Russians who have bought up property in central London, and appear not to be subject to Russian laws and taxes.? 3. A sundry group of Somalis representing the very many who have somehow evaded our brilliant Border Police and settled here ( I am not referring here to asylum seekers)
Who would have got in, and who not, under this policy? Why, and how, in each case?
Ending access to the welfare state for non UK nationals (and tightening rules allowing European passport holders to claim British citizenship) would have diverted most of the Somali community elsewhere. Taxing the second homes of Foreign nationals more stringently would have discouraged 'hot' foreign money inflating high end London property. Neither policy would discourage the enterprising young men looking to make their fortune who you bring up.
.
Of course your first two points could easily have been accomplished without Brexit, as was pointed out to you myriad times ( although I am not sure second homes is the beginning or end of the Russian issue)
More importantly:
What, in the application form would have identified Damo's Poles as "enterprising" and distinguished them from my Mum's cleaning girl?
Stopping migrant access to the welfare state would be the most effective way of separating the wheat from the chaff whilst allowing the borders to remain open to anyone who wanted to come here to work. It was the obvious quid pro quo that would have swung the Brexit vote. With no tax credit/housing benefit pull you are enterprising or you're on the streets so there's really no need for application forms or external judgements.
Nurses are on a higher wage than the grads starting in our agency... Speaking to someone on our grad scheme today and absolutely none of them are using food banks. Why do we always hear that nurses are using food banks?
It's a good headline.
Is the suggestion here that people are lying? Nurses can't possible be actually using food banks because a few people you talked to aren't?
No, just that pure logic suggest there must be plenty of other people in different industries using food banks as much, if not more, but that using nurses in the headline catches more attention, causes more anger etc. Nothing new as far as journalism goes but used to be emotive.
Maybe ending immigration would have a positive effect, in that it would force good folk of honest British stock (lol) into menial exploitative jobs and hammer home just what a pile of shit our society is
Maybe ending immigration would have a positive effect, in that it would force good folk of honest British stock (lol) into menial exploitative jobs and hammer home just what a pile of shit our society is
I can just hear the complaints now from entitled Brits.
"Why should I have to get a pizza delivery job, why can't some bloody immigrant do it?"
Maybe ending immigration would have a positive effect, in that it would force good folk of honest British stock (lol) into menial exploitative jobs and hammer home just what a pile of shit our society is
Wait, I'm confused... is it the right who hate the British working class or the left..?
Maybe ending immigration would have a positive effect, in that it would force good folk of honest British stock (lol) into menial exploitative jobs and hammer home just what a pile of shit our society is
Wait, I'm confused... is it the right who hate the British working class or the left..?
It's the rich. Unless they're talking about their employees, in which case they don't hate, merely despise. Yes there are exceptions. Yes you're an exception. Yes, you.
Maybe ending immigration would have a positive effect, in that it would force good folk of honest British stock (lol) into menial exploitative jobs and hammer home just what a pile of shit our society is
Wait, I'm confused... is it the right who hate the British working class or the left..?
It's the rich. Unless they're talking about their employees, in which case they don't hate, merely despise. Yes there are exceptions. Yes you're an exception. Yes, you.
A typical Boris piece, then some shadow cabinet bloke who was on the receiving end, showing again why Peston is IMO one of the best out there.
Peston said he had spoken with the Institute of Fiscal Studies who said that costing wise there 'isn't a cigarette paper between funding for the NHS proposed by the Labour and Conservative manifestos'
Prague & others, you are arguing points that I did not make. I was simply stating that I believe this assertion in relation to Polish workers to be untrue as far as the vast majority of UK people were concerned. (I accept that some racists would want it, but that makes the UK no different to most countries).
"These guys are no longer wanted in the UK, they will be off home soon, so no need to spend taxpayers money on their like. "
I am saying that for the vast majority of the UK public it is wrong to suggest that immigrant workers here are no longer wanted in the UK and they will be off home soon. No more no less.
Maybe ending immigration would have a positive effect, in that it would force good folk of honest British stock (lol) into menial exploitative jobs and hammer home just what a pile of shit our society is
I can just hear the complaints now from entitled Brits.
"Why should I have to get a pizza delivery job, why can't some bloody immigrant do it?"
You probably need to close your windows then. Or examine the voices in your head. What accent can you hear?
Maybe ending immigration would have a positive effect, in that it would force good folk of honest British stock (lol) into menial exploitative jobs and hammer home just what a pile of shit our society is
I can just hear the complaints now from entitled Brits.
"Why should I have to get a pizza delivery job, why can't some bloody immigrant do it?"
You probably need to close your windows then. Or examine the voices in your head. What accent can you hear?
It's called a figure of speech. Fairly standard stuff.
Comments
Yesterday alone, those age groups accounted for 70,533 of the 94,165 new registrations.
They need to now use that vote of course, but I think...and hope...that there could be a twist in this most cynical of elections for May.
'Let them go to Dublin. It will open vacancies for five other unskilled workers, and will remove 10 to 15 children from our over stretched education system, and 20 individuals from the healthcare system, free up social housing etc etc.
We all know all the counter arguments, but it seems there is a national groundswell towards the UKIP point of view.
Let's imagine that the immigration controls you presumably support, had been implemented 10 years ago. Since you support them, and are an intelligent bloke, you presumably have a view about how they would actually work in practice; the criteria, etc.
Under these rules do you suppose the following would have gained entry:
1. Damo's enterprising Poles?
2. The many rich Russians who have bought up property in central London, and appear not to be subject to Russian laws and taxes.?
3. A sundry group of Somalis representing the very many who have somehow evaded our brilliant Border Police and settled here ( I am not referring here to asylum seekers)
Who would have got in, and who not, under this policy? Why, and how, in each case?
.
More importantly:
What, in the application form would have identified Damo's Poles as "enterprising" and distinguished them from my Mum's cleaning girl?
This one should have been different. I mentioned earlier that I thought that the Tories were deliberately delaying publication because people only remember the last thing that was being discussed on the TV/in the papers.
If that was actually the case, they have got it completely wrong. They should have been the first to publish and to have hoped that everyone would forget what a pile of uninspiring crap their manifesto contained. Add in the seemingly bonkers attempts to antagonise their main voter base, and they might actually be in trouble. It begs the question, why were they so specific on the dementia tax? We all know something has got to give but.....
Why not just say that upon election they would undertake to re-visit Sir Andrew Dilnot's recommendations together with all the other masses of reports/reviews and make a decision within the next parliament?
It's like they got Thomas Driesen to write the manifesto and run the campaign. Shoddy in the extreme.
"Why should I have to get a pizza delivery job, why can't some bloody immigrant do it?"
;-)
A typical Boris piece, then some shadow cabinet bloke who was on the receiving end, showing again why Peston is IMO one of the best out there.
Peston said he had spoken with the Institute of Fiscal Studies who said that costing wise there 'isn't a cigarette paper between funding for the NHS proposed by the Labour and Conservative manifestos'
"These guys are no longer wanted in the UK, they will be off home soon, so no need to spend taxpayers money on their like. "
I am saying that for the vast majority of the UK public it is wrong to suggest that immigrant workers here are no longer wanted in the UK and they will be off home soon. No more no less.
Or examine the voices in your head.
What accent can you hear?
18th: YOU WON'T HAVE TO SELL YOUR HOME TO PAY FOR YOUR CARE
19th: AT LAST, A PM NOT AFRAID TO BE HONEST WITH YOU
21st: THE DEMENTIA TAX BACKLASH
I can only assume that someone at The Mail actually read the manifesto on the 20th!!!