New day, new migrants.

Status
Not open for further replies.


Very loathe to get involved in this with the awful deaths reported today. With the current crisis I would like us take a more compassionate stance, if nothing else to show as a more human, caring nation. However, longer term we need a more open debate. Politicians seem unwilling to have such an open discussion, maybe its with an EU referendum coming up. With 330,000 increases in population per annum the question needs to be asked how many more millions can our NHS etc. take. It may be that we can comfortably take more or even need more but it all seems to be guess work. You can say this refugees and migrations are separate issues. Many people on here or FB make statements as if this whole global issue is easily solved, and its anything but.
 
Market Where? said:
Particularly when the kneejerk reaction most of the useless fuckers want will end up with more innocent children drowning or suffocating to death in absolute terror in the back of a lorry!
Hey but at least they will be able to go about all smug about their facebook post/ shitty petition / faux outrage causing the government to change direction as they drink a caramel frappachino in tax dodging Starbucks!
God I hate that type of c.unt - does it show?
Click to expand...

Can you stop beating around the bush and just come out with what you really feel?

We owe it to the poor fuckers fleeing for their lives to do what's best and not what's easiest or most popular or the most 'right on'.
 
Brexit said:
Can you stop beating around the bush and just come out with what you really feel?

We owe it to the poor fuckers fleeing for their lives to do what's best and not what's easiest or most popular or the most 'right on'.
Click to expand...
Sorry I'll get off the fence!
I would happily swap Yvette Cooper and every bellend posting shite about the UK only taking 200 Syrian refugees for 10 refugees each.
In fact I will sponsor 10 if Cooper fucks off to Syria to sort out the problem - I will even drive them from Turkey to Coopers house.
 
Harry Angstrom said:
It's up to you. I assumed your what would you do answer was facetious.

I was wondering how your support for immigration (another assumption, I may be wrong) which was linked with greater proserity through greater consumption.

Employers don't push people into poverty, they pay what they can get away with. Hence my initial post. Which you disagreed with.

The government could force up the wage. Which they seem to be doing but this screws the mechanism and many people would be unemployable at the lowest wage. As I said earlier, it's supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Sorry can you make a little more sense of that, are you wondering how immigration is linked with greater prosperity as a result of greater consumption?

"Employers don't push people into poverty, they pay what they can get away with" - so in paying what they can get away with is the employee's wage not then subsidized by the state? Migration affects wage labour, that's a no brainer, but should we then implement social systems which top up wages for employers who don't pay enough? Should we have a word with them so they pay enough or should we just pass the bill of the welfare state onto them which is as a result of them, the employers. The way I see it is someone has to give out of the three; employee, employer, government. We have reached a point where the government are telling us they can't give anymore, we have people blaming this on immigration and the EU whilst ignoring the financial crash which isn't even a decade old. I feel I'm about to go off on a tangent about tax evasion and the pursuit of the vulnerable in this country so I'll stop now before I get all anti-capitalist up in this bitch.

Harry Angstrom said:
It's up to you. I assumed your what would you do answer was facetious.

I was wondering how your support for immigration (another assumption, I may be wrong) which was linked with greater proserity through greater consumption.

Employers don't push people into poverty, they pay what they can get away with. Hence my initial post. Which you disagreed with.

The government could force up the wage. Which they seem to be doing but this screws the mechanism and many people would be unemployable at the lowest wage. As I said earlier, it's supply and demand.
Click to expand...

As for this, it didn't seem to bother them when they pumped billions into the banking sector to stop its collapse. It would appear to me that the people are allowed to collapse and suffer but if those machines with the numbers in them stop, then we are all for it. Why should some suffer and not others? Why should the safety net be cut because the majority have been conned?
 
Last edited:
Shows how counterproductive it is meddling in other countries where we have no business being in the first place. Trying to introduce western style democracy into what are essentially tribal societies has very limited success but the west never seems to learn from this.
 
ReidysLeftLug said:
Ofcourse he has helped, ask him how his coalition helped when they decided to plunge Libya into the mire? Opening up a fresh breeding grounds for the exact activities we are seeing across the who middle-east.
Click to expand...

I've just googled Hannan-Libya and read an article by him from four and a half years ago. He was wise before the event then too.
 
ReidysLeftLug said:
Sorry can you make a little more sense of that, are you wondering how immigration is linked with greater prosperity as a result of greater consumption?

"Employers don't push people into poverty, they pay what they can get away with" - so in paying what they can get away with is the employee's wage not then subsidized by the state? Migration affects wage labour, that's a no brainer, but should we then implement social systems which top up wages for employers who don't pay enough? Should we have a word with them so they pay enough or should we just pass the bill of the welfare state onto them which is as a result of them, the employers. The way I see it is someone has to give out of the three; employee, employer, government. We have reached a point where the government are telling us they can't give anymore, we have people blaming this on immigration and the EU whilst ignoring the financial crash which isn't even a decade old. I feel I'm about to go off on a tangent about tax evasion and the pursuit of the vulnerable in this country so I'll stop now before I get all anti-capitalist up in this bitch.



As for this, it didn't seem to bother them when they pumped billions into the banking sector to stop its collapse. It would appear to me that the people are allowed to collapse and suffer but if those machines with the numbers in them stop, then we are all for it. Why should some suffer and not others? Why should the safety net be cut because the majority have been conned?
Click to expand...

Sorry, it was badly worded. I was proposing that a radical cut in immigration and the number of immigrants in the UK would benefit the lower paid and make a more equal society. You appeared to disagree and said that more workers made for a more vibrant economy. Which is correct but doesn't address the poor pay at the lower end and the inequality of income. I wondered which system you favoured? Since mass immigration of unskilled workers leads to people at the lower end being worse off. I also said I am aware that the horse has bolted.

I did not get into top up/tax credits but believe these are fundamentally wrong and employers should not be subsidised for employing people.

There are many people in the banking sector who should be in prison IMHO. They were criminally culpable for the way they acted but if the banks hadn't been propped up the whole thing would have had to be nationalised. Which may not have been a bad thing.
 
smoker said:
How many beheading, drowning, burning alive and other ISIS snuff videos do we need to see before we do something about the causes of the problem?
Click to expand...
Go and save up mate and get yourself over there and fight them like that gadgie from Shields. Why should we send our guys and send our money to fight people who are living by the same code as our allies Saudi Arabia and who are supported by our allies Turkey and various Arab states? And what happened the last time we sent the military into that part of the world? Oh yeah, we ended up with ISIS.
 
Chocolate Fireguard said:
Go and save up mate and get yourself over there and fight them like that gadgie from Shields. Why should we send our guys and send our money to fight people who are living by the same code as our allies Saudi Arabia and who are supported by our allies Turkey and various Arab states? And what happened the last time we sent the military into that part of the world? Oh yeah, we ended up with ISIS.
Click to expand...

Do you not think, having created the instability, we have a duty to sort it out?

Military action is just one of a number of options available. Brokering a truce between Assad, the FSA and anti-ISIS Islamic groups would be a start,

"What happened last time we sent soldiers to France?", Grandad Fireguard 1944.
 
EDGE said:
If we let them in where do we put them? I assume working class areas which are already under enormous strain.

Surrey commuter belt seems a better option.
Click to expand...
I'd have thought the Labour controlled areas would be up for it
Surrey could pay for its own army to stop it
 
Nee one's gonna touch Syria (militarily) with a shitty stick tbh. That war will rumble on for a decade at least according to experts. It's a total clusterfuck.
 
smoker said:
Do you not think, having created the instability, we have a duty to sort it out?

Military action is just one of a number of options available. Brokering a truce between Assad, the FSA and anti-ISIS Islamic groups would be a start,

"What happened last time we sent soldiers to France?", Grandad Fireguard 1944.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, we'll just broker a peace in Syria, easy as that.

It's a wonder nobody has thought of it before. If we ask them to be nice to each other and settle their differences peacefully it might just work.

Come to think of it we could try the same thing with Israel and the Palestinians.
 
ReidysLeftLug said:
Don't have a conversation, have a conversation, which is it? You are saying I'm a friend of capitalism for briefly alluding to how a system based on consumption works, capitalism isn't just about consuming as I am sure you know, it is also about the exploitation of workers, not only workers but social systems put in place to support the vulnerable. I suppose employers know that if they push their employees into poverty the government will pick up the slack, perhaps the government should have more control and force an increase in wage to make up for the removal of working tax credits? Let us go one step further and pass the bill of the welfare state to all and every workplace.



Ofcourse he has helped, ask him how his coalition helped when they decided to plunge Libya into the mire? Opening up a fresh breeding grounds for the exact activities we are seeing across the who middle-east.



We were backing those exact rebels against Assad, when he was set to cross the 'red line', when Putin told us to back off because the information wasn't clear...?
Click to expand...
Spot on that i remember at the time a Government spokesman saying we're only supplying the good rebels it would be laughable if it wasnt so tragic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top