EU, Immigration and UKIP

[richa2002]

Thousands of Britons claim dole in Germany.


And people have the cheek to complain about benefit tourism here!

Well then the Germans are quite obviously as idiotic as us. This 'it goes two-ways' argument is very poor which can be soon be settled by seeing a comparison between UK to Romania/Bulgaria/lesser economically developed economies and Romania/Bulgaria/lesser economically developed economies to UK. The large-scale migration that actually matters.

 

[radamfi]

London is still low density compared to other major world cities.

According to Wikipedia, the population density in Manhattan is 27,345.9/km2
In New York City as a whole: 10,725.4/km2
In Greater London: 5,218/km2

 

[Antman]

Perhaps claiming benefits is not the reason they want to come to the UK?

Well I can't think of any other reason. These scenes from Calais are a great advert for UKIP.

 

[Butts]

Undoubtedly Unemployment Benefit rates should be higher for people with a work history of at least a few years - perhaps tiered.

That would remove the anomaly for 24 year olds who may have worked for five years or more.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You cannot claim unemployment benefit here as an EEA national unless you can demonstrate a good chance of finding work. Unemployment benefit is often higher for people who have worked here too- it's not means tested if you've paid sufficient national insurance.

The main advantage of coming to the UK as an illegal immigrant is that we don't have a culture of needing to show papers to do basic transactions. It's easier to get work in the black market here. That has many problems but "stealing benefits" is not one of them. I'd hate to have the European focus on ID though.

 

[anme]

Well I can't think of any other reason. These scenes from Calais are a great advert for UKIP.

Perhaps they want to work and earn a living? Maybe they speak good English or have connections in the UK? Maybe they have some idealistic (and admittedly, probably inaccurate view) of life in the UK? I'm sure you could think of some more reasons if you used your imagination.

 

[ainsworth74]

Unemployment benefit is often higher for people who have worked here too- it's not means tested if you've paid sufficient national insurance.

Contribution based Jobseekers Allowance is means tested but it only takes account of the claimants earnings (or personal pensions) not their partner. But there is a means testing element to it. Further it's paid at the same rate as income-based JSA so it isn't normally higher no matter what your work history as, for most people, once they lose their job they'll have no other earnings so would only get the £72.40 (or £57.35).

I think contribution-based JSA needs serious reform so that there is a link between the amount you're paid and the amount you've earned.

 

[Oswyntail]

Perhaps claiming benefits is not the reason they want to come to the UK?

The Calais question is somewhat different from "legal" immigration. I may have this completely wrong, but the folk at Calais are not EU citizens (with right to free movement) but are economic or political migrants from outside the EU. Generally, they have entered the EU illegally, and are heading to Britain for a number of reasons - possibly economic, but also, commonly, because English is their second language and they feel this would make their settling in easier. Possibly they have relatives here, but no right of residence. They will not be from Commonwealth countries. However, IIRC, it is the legal duty of the first "free" country they enter to process them, give them asylum if required, deport them home if there is no reason not to. To find themselves at Calais, they must have passed through at least France - IMHO a "free" country - if not several others. Why the French are not acting according to their responsibilities is perplexing. This is not a British problem, and Britain has no legal responsibility for these people.
Please, someone, correct me if I am wrong.

 

[radamfi]

To find themselves at Calais, they must have passed through at least France - IMHO a "free" country - if not several others. Why the French are not acting according to their responsibilities is perplexing. This is not a British problem, and Britain has no legal responsibility for these people.
Please, someone, correct me if I am wrong.

It is up to the EU as a whole to police the border effectively. It is not fair to get the countries neighbouring the EU land border to shoulder the whole responsibility on their own.

The real solution is to make conditions in origin countries pleasant enough so that people don't want to leave in large numbers.

 

[Butts]

Contribution based Jobseekers Allowance is means tested but it only takes account of the claimants earnings (or personal pensions) not their partner. But there is a means testing element to it. Further it's paid at the same rate as income-based JSA so it isn't normally higher no matter what your work history as, for most people, once they lose their job they'll have no other earnings so would only get the £72.40 (or £57.35).

I think contribution-based JSA needs serious reform so that there is a link between the amount you're paid and the amount you've earned.

Quite right, a Fifty Year old who has made contributions for decades should see that reflected in the level of remuneration they receive in times of need.

 

[Oswyntail]

It is up to the EU as a whole to police the border effectively. It is not fair to get the countries neighbouring the EU land border to shoulder the whole responsibility on their own.

The real solution is to make conditions in origin countries pleasant enough so that people don't want to leave in large numbers.

While I agree with the dream of your second paragraph (how do you suggest we make the conditions pleasant enough in, say, Somalia?), I would point out that the EU is not itself a nation state, and so has no borders to patrol. Individual nations do have the responsibility in law. (In what way is it "fair" to shuffle off these responsibilities on to Britain?) The worst offenders at ignoring their responsibility are France and italy, which is why they have kicked up the recent fuss about Britain withdrawing support for their maritime border patrol operations (N.B. Not "Search and Rescue", despite what the press try to tell us)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

[/B]

Quite right, a Fifty Year old who has made contributions for decades should see that reflected in the level of remuneration they receive in times of need.

Why? NI is not a savings scheme, it is meant to provide you with the basics in times of crisis

 

[radamfi]

While I agree with the dream of your second paragraph (how do you suggest we make the conditions pleasant enough in, say, Somalia?), I would point out that the EU is not itself a nation state, and so has no borders to patrol. Individual nations do have the responsibility in law. (In what way is it "fair" to shuffle off these responsibilities on to Britain?) The worst offenders at ignoring their responsibility are France and italy, which is why they have kicked up the recent fuss about Britain withdrawing support for their maritime border patrol operations (N.B. Not "Search and Rescue", despite what the press try to tell us)

Obviously it is common belief that the world is bad and cannot be fixed, therefore Somalia etc. is doomed. But if you believe that there is a point to the world continuing, and children continuing to be thrown into the world, then these issues need to be met head on as a top priority.

If indeed the target destination is the UK, geography implies they have to travel through other countries to get there. It is not the fault of Italy or France that they happen to be in the way. People in the whole of the UK pay for the Channel border controls. Given we have free movement throughout the EU, responsibility for the EU's border protection should lie with the EU. If the current law puts the burden on a few countries, then that is unfair, and should be changed.

 

[Oswyntail]

Obviously it is common belief that the world is bad and cannot be fixed, therefore Somalia etc. is doomed. But if you believe that there is a point to the world continuing, and children continuing to be thrown into the world, then these issues need to be met head on as a top priority.

I quite agree, which is why we have extensive aid programmes. But we still cannot make the cultures of countries change, certainly not overnight.

.... Given we have free movement throughout the EU, responsibility for the EU's border protection should lie with the EU. If the current law puts the burden on a few countries, then that is unfair, and should be changed.

We have free movement for nationals of EU countries. The situation may be "unfair", but it is still the situation. There are aspects of Britain that are "unfair" - being cut off from the continent restricts transport flexibility, for instance. We cannot change our borders, and that is part of what defines a country.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Quite right, a Fifty Year old who has made contributions for decades should see that reflected in the level of remuneration they receive in times of need.

Why? Someone who is 50 should get no more JSA than someone who is 20. The "savings" element of NICs is for your pension, not for when you can't get a job.

 

[Butts]

Why? Someone who is 50 should get no more JSA than someone who is 20. The "savings" element of NICs is for your pension, not for when you can't get a job.

National Insurance is an anachronism as all benefits/pensions are funded from current taxation - there is no "pot of money".

It's just a form of Income Tax in disguise that kicks in at a much lower threshold (thus adversely affecting low earners).

Perhaps it would be more sensible to combine the two so we can perhaps appreciate the real level.

My point about the 50 year old was that unemployment benefit should perhaps be higher for those who have made a lifetime of contributions. After all the State Pension is to a degree.

 

[21C101]

It's capped at £57.35 if you're under 25, 25 and above it's £72.40.

Must be gut-wrenching being 24 and made jobless...

You are looking at the wrong target.

The big money in welfare is in tax credits. Go to entitledto.co.uk and use their calculator and for the purposes of the calculator be a person or couple with four children, paying £300 a week rent, £150 a month council tax and both working 0 hours a week or one of you working 16 hours a week at minimum wage (£6.50 per hour).

 

[jon0844]

Perhaps claiming benefits is not the reason they want to come to the UK?

We don't have ID cards, the police are generally told not to stop people without good reason, and the UK Border agency is inept due to lack of staff and powers, so it seems we are the place to come if you want to disappear and earn money on the black economy.

Edit: I see someone else has already said much the same.

 

[Tetchytyke]

National Insurance is an anachronism as all benefits/pensions are funded from current taxation - there is no "pot of money".

It's just a form of Income Tax in disguise that kicks in at a much lower threshold (thus adversely affecting low earners).

Yeah, it's just another tax but with a nice name. Though NI also sees employers pay a wedge too.

My point about the 50 year old was that unemployment benefit should perhaps be higher for those who have made a lifetime of contributions. After all the State Pension is to a degree.

That's what I was disagreeing with. Someone who is 25 or 30 and falls on hard times has also "made a lifetime of contributions", so why should they get less?

This idea that the baby boomers deserve everything handed to them on a plate just because they're old is a big part of why this country is skint. Most of the welfare budget goes on pensions, but that's a fact that's never ever ever talked about.

 

[Oswyntail]

...This idea that the baby boomers deserve everything handed to them on a plate just because they're old is a big part of why this country is skint. ..

Please rephrase that, please. This is not really about generational warfare. "Baby boomers" have had as many ups and downs in their economic existence as any generation. Their pensions are provided on the basis that, for their working life, that is the level of pension they have been told to plan for. Reductions to provision can only be introduced over many years. Yes, it is a huge cost, but one that morally has to be paid

 

[Tetchytyke]

Please rephrase that, please. This is not really about generational warfare. "Baby boomers" have had as many ups and downs in their economic existence as any generation.

It is exactly about generational warfare.

My pension scheme, for instance, has an £11bn deficit, all because the baby boomers have been promised stuff that nobody can afford. And rather than deal with that, the baby boomers have just decided to pass the bill to people like me. I now can't afford a pension because they've decided I should pay 9% of salary in and get significantly fewer benefits.

Reductions to provision can only be introduced over many years. Yes, it is a huge cost, but one that morally has to be paid

Funny, isn't it, how "reductions to provision" can be implemeted immediately if you're disabled, but if you're a middle class baby boomer they can't. If you're a middle class baby boomer you'll get your unaffordable pension, you'll get your nursing care for free, you'll get your cuts in inheritance tax.

Anyone would think this country is run by and for the benefit of middle class baby boomers.

"We're all in this together" if you're poor or young or disabled. If you're a middle class baby boomer then it's a "moral duty" to get everything handed over on a silver spoon.

The Tories really are the party of "I'm alright Jack". As for Labour, well, they're just traitorous Tory shills. And still Ed Miliband wonders why his popularity rating is about the same as ebola's.

Meanwhile, the likes of UKIP are attempting to claim that all the problems in the country are caused by Piotr the Polish Plumber. Yeah right.

 

[ExRes]

Very interesting how the so called 'baby boomers' suddenly become 'middle class baby boomers', is a postman a middle class baby boomer, is a railway employee a middle class baby boomer, is a member of the armed forces a middle class baby boomer, your hatred of the Conservative party does you no favours when you deliberately try to make out that one section of society is responsible for every ill while conveniently overlooking how that section is actually made up

Don't forget how long these pensions have been in force, then work your way through the governments that have been in power during that time

 

[Tetchytyke]

Very interesting how the so called 'baby boomers' suddenly become 'middle class baby boomers'

Is it? I thought it slightly more accurate. The whining about inheritance tax and the bellyaching about paying for your own nursing care in later life stems from people who have expensive property. That isn't the bloke who worked down the mines for 40 years until Thatcher dumped on him.

I don't think they're solely responsible for what's happening, but it's strange how in our time of "austerity" they get to keep every single penny of their benefits whilst my tax goes up and up and up and the benefits I get from my tax go down and down and down to pay for it all. "We're all in this together". Of course we are.

I hate neo-liberals, and the Labour lot are just as bad as the Tories. In some ways they're worse; at least when you vote Tory you know you're going to get a corrupt member of the landed gentry with a face like the back of a spoon.

 

[Oswyntail]

.... at least when you vote Tory you know you're going to get a corrupt member of the landed gentry with a face like the back of a spoon.

What a ridiculously childish statement. You spout your claptrap about this, middle classes, pensions, miners and expect anyone to take you seriously?:roll: Get real, abandon your slogans, and look what is actually happening today.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What is happening today? I know what I think is happening, what do you think is happening?

Families have to use food banks whilst we fire £1m torpedoes at Brown people for no good reason. We have kleptomaniac politicians stealing our state assets and selling them cheaply to their mates.

What do you think is happening?

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

What is happening today? I know what I think is happening, what do you think is happening?

Families have to use food banks whilst we fire £1m torpedoes at Brown people for no good reason. We have kleptomaniac politicians stealing our state assets and selling them cheaply to their mates.

What do you think is happening?

Yep....just about sums it up!

 

[Yew]

What is happening today? I know what I think is happening, what do you think is happening?

Families have to use food banks whilst we fire £1m torpedoes at Brown people for no good reason. We have kleptomaniac politicians stealing our state assets and selling them cheaply to their mates.

What do you think is happening?

Neoliberalisim in action.

 

[21C101]

What a ridiculously childish statement. You spout your claptrap about this, middle classes, pensions, miners and expect anyone to take you seriously?:roll: Get real, abandon your slogans, and look what is actually happening today.

Twenty five years ago I would have agreed with you, however the Tory party has again become the preserve of the aristocracy and gentry. Just look which schools the cabinet members went to.

The main reason is the abolition of grammar schools, which were the best tool for social mobility the country ever had.

The result is the rise of UKIP/SNP

 

[Oswyntail]

Twenty five years ago I would have agreed with you, however the Tory party has again become the preserve of the aristocracy and gentry. Just look which schools the cabinet members went to. ...

Aristocracy and gentry? Yes they are wealthy, yes they had a good education because of it, but this does not mean they are the evil, corrupt caricatures we see portrayed. After all, the same could be said of Harriet Harman, or Margaret Hodge (reputedly the richest MP at present).

 

[Butts]

Twenty five years ago I would have agreed with you, however the Tory party has again become the preserve of the aristocracy and gentry. Just look which schools the cabinet members went to.

The main reason is the abolition of grammar schools, which were the best tool for social mobility the country ever had.

The result is the rise of UKIP/SNP

Well these were largely abolished by a Labour Administration - your hated aristocracy and gentry were I'm sure in favour of them

 

[ExRes]

Is it? I thought it slightly more accurate. The whining about inheritance tax and the bellyaching about paying for your own nursing care in later life stems from people who have expensive property. That isn't the bloke who worked down the mines for 40 years until Thatcher dumped on him.

I don't think they're solely responsible for what's happening, but it's strange how in our time of "austerity" they get to keep every single penny of their benefits whilst my tax goes up and up and up and the benefits I get from my tax go down and down and down to pay for it all. "We're all in this together". Of course we are.

I hate neo-liberals, and the Labour lot are just as bad as the Tories. In some ways they're worse; at least when you vote Tory you know you're going to get a corrupt member of the landed gentry with a face like the back of a spoon.

You're as welcome and entitled to your opinion as I am to mine and long may that continue, but your constant anti conservative whining has become incredibly boring. You seem to conveniently forget that all and every government is as corrupt as the one before and the one following and your beloved 'old' Labour as just as bad as any other

Don't you understand that a vast number of your hated baby boomers are people just like me, born to working class parents in a council house, educated at a comprehensive and working by 16 years of age, I was lucky that I joined the Post Office and got the benefits that went with it, a good compulsory pension scheme and a decent wage, so does that make me some sort of social destroyer stealing from the downtrodden workers ?

You should also reconsider your comments on Maggie Thatcher and the miners, check the facts, facts you notice not rabid and false accusations, you'll find that the Labour governments preceding Thatcher closed more mines that she ever managed to, or doesn't that fit your view of the truth ?