Popular Post Danwichmann Posted July 8 Popular Post Share Posted July 8 37 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Im sure everyone would welcome these people in if we could but the sad reality we cannot. We cant even house alot of own. You seen how many homeless we have ? And so many paying into the tax system that cannot afford a property. Thats the biggest issue. Housing them, adding more people who will need NHS care when are already struggling. You cant just bring people here house them, tell them not to contribute/work (im pretty sure alot of them will want to work and make a living which is great) im in for immigration as they do alot of jobs people dont want to do here and add value. It just needs to be done in a correct manner that doesnt inflate the country as we are already in a financial mess as country. The tories made a **** mess of this as we know so im hoping starmer can improve not continue the mess or make it worse.i just have my reservations he wont as he was given countless opportunities to tell us during the debates his plan and he said very little. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/education/2016/09/register-now-for-amnestys-free-online-course-on-refugee-rights/ A course like this might help you understand the difference between immigration, asylum seekers and refugees. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 8 VT Supporter Share Posted July 8 7 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Im sure everyone would welcome these people in if we could but the sad reality we cannot. We cant even house alot of own. You seen how many homeless we have ? And so many paying into the tax system that cannot afford a property. Thats the biggest issue. Housing them, adding more people who will need NHS care when are already struggling. You cant just bring people here house them, tell them not to contribute/work (im pretty sure alot of them will want to work and make a living which is great) im in for immigration as they do alot of jobs people dont want to do here and add value. It just needs to be done in a correct manner that doesnt inflate the country as we are already in a financial mess as country. The tories made a **** mess of this as we know so im hoping starmer can improve not continue the mess or make it worse.i just have my reservations he wont as he was given countless opportunities to tell us during the debates his plan and he said very little. I agree that housing in the UK really does need sorting out, and the problem of housing new arrivals is a perfect illustration of why it needs a long term solution for the health of the economy. It's catch 22. We need these people, as the general UK population isn't having enough babies, but we don't have enough housing. Thatcher's Right to Buy initiative succeeded in its short term aims of increasing home ownership, but due to the ban on funds raised by Councils being reinvested in social housing stock, over the long term sent the property market into almost hyperinflation, resulting in what we see today; decreased home ownership, not enough homes being built, and insane property prices, which is all made worse by the trend for more people to live alone nowadays. So if you look at the end point of 'enough homes for people', then work out how to get there, you realise that it would inevitably mean many homes going down in value. Of course, current value is highly inflated due to lack of supply, so the 'value' is a macroeconomic mirage (if you sell your house for what is currently an inflated price, the money is real, but on a national scale there's nothing to underpin it). Lots of people, mortgages and banks are also, so to speak, addicted to this property overvaluation. So how do we get more homes, without a massive shock? When I'm thinking about massive shocks I think of Covid, which shook things up massively, but was, to a certain extent unavoidable, and Brexit, the shock of which was completely avoidable, but again destroyed livelihoods and created millionaires almost overnight. For me one key thing to do would be to allow councils to once again borrow a limited, and I do mean limited, amount for housebuilding, so the readjustment of property prices will be a gradual slowdown/stabilisation, rather than a massive crash. Looking deeper at how homes are built, it needs to be a gradual increase to avoid a spike in demand (and costs) for land, labour and materials. re homelessness, it's (mostly) nowt to do with house prices, and more to do with lack of support for mental health issues, domestic violence victims, addiction etc. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 8 VT Supporter Share Posted July 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, Demitri_C said: Im sure everyone would welcome these people in if we could but the sad reality we cannot. We cant even house alot of own. You seen how many homeless we have ? And so many paying into the tax system that cannot afford a property. Thats the biggest issue. Housing them, adding more people who will need NHS care when are already struggling You're doing it again. You're confusing Asylum seekers and immigrants. Asylum seekers make up about 5% of the people who arrive in the country every year. It's a relatively tiny number. They have an almost negligible impact to housing and the NHS. 1 hour ago, Demitri_C said: You cant just bring people here house them, tell them not to contribute/work (im pretty sure alot of them will want to work and make a living which is great) im in for immigration as they do alot of jobs people dont want to do here and add value. It just needs to be done in a correct manner that doesnt inflate the country as we are already in a financial mess as country. Any asylum seeker or immigrant can and should work and contribute. And it's been said again and again that immigrants contribute far more to the country than they take away. The only time they can't work is when they're waiting on their applications, which is exactly what putting more money and resource into that process would help solve because it would speed it up, rather than wasting that money on gimmicks Edited July 8 by Stevo985 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, Demitri_C said: Im sure everyone would welcome these people in if we could but the sad reality we cannot. We cant even house alot of own. You seen how many homeless we have ? Let it not be forgotten that we solved this problem overnight during Covid, then promptly stopped giving a shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 8 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: The only time they can't work is when they're waiting on their applications, which is exactly what putting more money and resource into that process would help solve because it would speed it up, rather than wasting that money on gimmicks It should also be noted that we have some of the harshest rules in Europe for this. Many other countries either let them work immediately while being assessed, or let them do so after a few weeks if their claim is still pending. We ban them from working, give them £40 a week and then moan that they don't integrate 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: You're doing it again. You're confusing Asylum seekers and immigrants. Asylum seekers make up about 5% of the people who arrive in the country every year. It's a relatively tiny number. They have an almost negligible impact to housing and the NHS. Any asylum seeker or immigrant can and should work and contribute. And it's been said again and again that immigrants contribute far more to the country than they take away. The only time they can't work is when they're waiting on their applications, which is exactly what putting more money and resource into that process would help solve because it would speed it up, rather than wasting that money on gimmicks Even if its 1% you still need to house them and find somewhere for them live. If we cant help our own then even that percentage still adds pressure to the roads, NHS etc . Whether its illegals or asylums you are adding to the population here. We both agree immigration is good but has to be done in a controlled manner It has to be done sensibly for all our sakes. 17 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Let it not be forgotten that we solved this problem overnight during Covid, then promptly stopped giving a shit. Excellent point Edited July 8 by Demitri_C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 8 Moderator Share Posted July 8 2 hours ago, bobzy said: Why treat people like actual human beings when you can treat them like little work machines, eh? Hold on. @Demitri_C’s post said “if they are interested”. So what’s wrong with giving people the chance of a useful job, which they want to do? Particularly when the alternative is sitting in a room all day unable to do anything that could make their life have some meaning and satisfaction? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozzavfc Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 Ban on on-shore windfarms in England scrapped by Reeves today. Crazy that we haven't built any in England since 2010. So many quick and easy wins for the Labour party, especially if we can make them in the UK 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 8 VT Supporter Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, Demitri_C said: Even if its 1% you still need to house them and find somewhere for them live. If we cant help our own then even that percentage still adds pressure to the roads, NHS etc . Whether its illegals or asylums you are adding to the population here. We both agree immigration is good but has to be done in a controlled manner It has to be done sensibly for all our sakes. Nobody is saying it shouldn't be done sensibly. But you are equating taking in asylum seekers with adding pressure to the NHS and housing etc. You are automatically assuming they're a problem. They're not You're a tory dream to be honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 3 hours ago, Demitri_C said: Ah ok lets all not work then on that basis and not be work machines eh ? 34 minutes ago, blandy said: Hold on. @Demitri_C’s post said “if they are interested”. So what’s wrong with giving people the chance of a useful job, which they want to do? Particularly when the alternative is sitting in a room all day unable to do anything that could make their life have some meaning and satisfaction? It's not so much people coming over to work etc, it's the bit he said below in bold: 18 hours ago, Demitri_C said: I mean for me we should be looking at a scheme where if any were interested in becoming nurses/HCAs (a area we are massively in need of help) spend some money training them and there has to be a agreement you work here for x amount of time so they just dont get the paid training and **** off wasting time and money. You can't just lock people into work. If their circumstances change? Tough shit, you're here working for <x> years. Want to get a better job? Tough shit, you're a nurse for <x> years. Let alone being able to return home because of a whole variety of reasons. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted July 8 VT Supporter Share Posted July 8 30 minutes ago, Mozzavfc said: Ban on on-shore windfarms in England scrapped by Reeves today. Crazy that we haven't built any in England since 2010. So many quick and easy wins for the Labour party, especially if we can make them in the UK One of the most ridiculous policies ever. ESPECIALLY in the middle of the Energy Crunch and DOUBLY ESPECIALLY when trying to reach net zero. Utterly insane where we've been on this just to appease a few country folk. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 Entirely predictably from wonkbag Barclay's broadsheet bog roll. It's not escaping from the fossil fuel trap, it's... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/03/on-the-front-lines-of-ed-milibands-wind-turbine-invasion/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 10 minutes ago, bobzy said: It's not so much people coming over to work etc, it's the bit he said below in bold: You can't just lock people into work. If their circumstances change? Tough shit, you're here working for <x> years. Want to get a better job? Tough shit, you're a nurse for <x> years. Let alone being able to return home because of a whole variety of reasons. We do that in Australia with work visas sponsored by an employer. You are only allowed to stay if you are employed with the company sponsoring you. Eventually you will have spent enough time in the country to transition to a more flexible visa though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 8 minutes ago, LondonLax said: We do that in Australia with work visas sponsored by an employer. You are only allowed to stay if you are employed with the company sponsoring you. Eventually you will have spent enough time in the country to transition to a more flexible visa though. But that's with immigrants, not asylum seekers which is what I believe was suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 5 minutes ago, LondonLax said: We do that in Australia with work visas sponsored by an employer. You are only allowed to stay if you are employed with the company sponsoring you. Eventually you will have spent enough time in the country to transition to a more flexible visa though. In the UK, things are a bit more favourable to the worker - you can change employers or jobs, and just need to keep your visa details up to date. If you lose the job for any reason you have 60 days to find work. I've heard some horror stories from America of people on these kind of agreements being abused and subjected to appalling working conditions because unscrupulous employers know that the employee has the option of accepting they're essentially a slave for x years, or uprooting their life and leaving the country. The employer-employee relationship is lopsided enough without giving them power over your residency in the country. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post sidcow Posted July 8 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted July 8 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Xann said: Entirely predictably from wonkbag Barclay's broadsheet bog roll. It's not escaping from the fossil fuel trap, it's... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/03/on-the-front-lines-of-ed-milibands-wind-turbine-invasion/ **** them. They're pissing into the wind over this issue. The cheapest form of electricity generation we have. It's happening and The Telegraph can publish as many bullshit stories they like (much like electric cars), their diminishing country gentry gammons can get as blustery and red faced with anger over it as much as they like. The remaining 97% of the population and the health of the planet are going to reap the benefits. This issue has had me so angry for years now. I'm so happy they've jumped on it from Day 1. I'd happily have one within sight of my house, I'd watch it spinning around for hours. Edited July 8 by sidcow 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 22 minutes ago, Danwichmann said: But that's with immigrants, not asylum seekers which is what I believe was suggested. I understand, but the principle was an idea that it would be wrong to bind a person to an employer for a period. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 25 minutes ago, Davkaus said: In the UK, things are a bit more favourable to the worker - you can change employers or jobs, and just need to keep your visa details up to date. If you lose the job for any reason you have 60 days to find work. I've heard some horror stories from America of people on these kind of agreements being abused and subjected to appalling working conditions because unscrupulous employers know that the employee has the option of accepting they're essentially a slave for x years, or uprooting their life and leaving the country. The employer-employee relationship is lopsided enough without giving them power over your residency in the country. You can change employers in Australia as well but the new employer has to agree to take on the cost/responsibility of the visa. Whichever employer you are with is not really the main thing. It’s just that the principle that a person is only permitted to stay in a country as long as they are employed by their visa sponsor is already a well established practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 14 minutes ago, LondonLax said: You can change employers in Australia as well but the new employer has to agree to take on the cost/responsibility of the visa. Whichever employer you are with is not really the main thing. It’s just that the principle that a person is only permitted to stay in a country as long as they are employed by their visa sponsor is already a well established practice. That's similar to China, although this probably isn't a country we want to use as a model for good practice when it comes to human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 20 minutes ago, Danwichmann said: That's similar to China, although this probably isn't a country we want to use as a model for good practice when it comes to human rights. I think it’s probably similar to most countries that offer a work sponsored visa program. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts