UKIP - What is it they are going to do for you?

I'm happy this was a thoroughly interesting read, not resorting to childish stupidity.

I also learned a few new things

 

Not against immigration am for a better controlled immigration am against the open door policy! there is a big difference ! one includes everyone the other lets in skill sets the country needs !! one lets in scroungers and crims , the other lets in people that will positively contribute to countries economy and well being.
Infact pretty much like Norway has done in bringing oil workers and related trades to train up their own workforce with skillsets they need.

Rather than believing the smear campaigns of the mainstream parties try reading their policy and manifesto , would surprise a lot of folk it surprised me enough to get my support over the samey samey lib lab con ! as an aside the greens have some very good ideas as well!

 

Fair enough, but as JH has pointed out the number of immegrints that scrounge is very small and massively over exegerated. I'd vote NHA party if I could, but I don't think they're running in my constituatiancy.

 

I think that national statistics mean very little in localised areas that have particularly large immigrant populations. There are various towns in the Eastern part of the Country where locals just do not make any progress up the council housing list, whilst immigrants are fast tracked!

 

"supposedly"

Source the daily mail?

 

With the exception of asylum have you got any evidence at all that housing policy favours migrants? That would be shocking if the case, but I'll bet it's BS.

You do look at the world upside down don't you? If you want to look at housing that favours one type of person over another try Ascot, or the posher bits of Surrey etc etc. Only one sort of person been living there.

 

Godfather and Moose. Why do you need proof of the fact that unless immigrants bring their accommodation with them (maybe a tent) their influx is bound to have an impact on the existing housing. Surely you can understand that.

But in case you can't, I'll give you an example, in nice simple terms.

One of my clients has their daughter and baby living with them in the Boston area (Lincs) and she has been on the Council waiting list for several years. Boston council allocate housing according to what Band someone is in, and applicants are allocated the band based on a number of factors, such as their current suitable housing. The daughter is not 'homeless' and therefore the available housing goes to more needy applicants, who maybe do not have a family home through being residents for generations, but who fall behind with rents and get chucked out, or become homeless for other reasons. The immigrant population is quite transient as most of them have family at in their country of origin who tend to come out and join them, squeezing into homes, and possibly squeezing, non family incumbents out, who then become homeless.

My clients are absolutely not racist, and they accept that the others may well be more "needy" than their daughter, but that doesn't alter the fact that many more applicants start to take lawful precedence over his daughter when it comes to getting the accommodation. Basically, there are now more people after the same number of homes.

It is a basic fact. I realise that this goes against what you want to hear, and want proof before you have to believe it. But it is a fact.

 

Housing homeless immigrants is not fast tracking them ahead of homeless brits (whom you obviously feel are superior). Wake up we live in a global society. As I've said a thousand times it is not the immigrants but the bosses of companies that source them for cheap labour that is the problem, enforce equal pay and the attraction of employing Eastern Europeans ahead of brits practically disappears. They simply will not come if they have to compete for jobs on equal terms.

 

Ok, if it pleases you, mr pedantic , I'll change the term "fast-tracked" to "move faster up the banding system".

But, whatever, it still has the same effect on locals wanting their own place to live.

I didn't say "ahead of homeless Brits" that is the point, this daughter is not homeless, so gets overlooked!:doh: and I certainly havn't said anything about superiority, that's just stupid.

What do you mean about enforcing pay equality, do you mean across the whole of the EU, because whilst pay is higher here than elsewhere, there will always be an attraction.

Why do you people always get so personal, can you not just argue the content in the posts?

 

More people using same amount of facilities is always going to put more pressure on those facilities! to which build more facilities I hear you cry , yet I bet your first to moan when your income tax and local taxes go up to pay for it.

 

Too right we should house the homeless ahead of those that aren't, regardless of race.

Given the choice the average British employer would not want language barrier, insurance hassles etc. if it wasn't worthwhile to him and jobs would be advertised locally first. I meant cut out the cheap labour; ask yourself if you would emigrate to a country where you can't virtually walk into a job but instead would have to join the same queue as the locals? You most likely wouldn't, nor would I. It is the employers inviting them here that are attracted and it makes it all too easy for immigrants to come.

 

And yet more taxes and wealth to pay for it. Are you suggesting that the country is incapable of growth?

 

Not at all, however at what point do we say enough , let me put this another way , you can pour a pint into a pint pot when it is full if you keep filling it you will be wasting whatever your pouring!

 

It's a false argument, because it isn't the primary cause of the things that you are concerned about. The housing problem is a big mix of issues. We don't build enough for demand. Houses are used as investments, because so many other forms of investment are rubbish. There are hundreds of thousands of second homes used as weekend retreats which were perfectly good ordinary homes. Holiday lets ditto. Hundreds of thousands of people own more than one home. Some homes are bought for purely for investment and aren't even let.

As for social housing of course we sold it off and didn't build more.

If you want to talk about the impact of immigration talk about them all. London is full of Americans, Australians, Scandinavians and rich others who contribute to the country and don't live in social housing. But their overall buyin power means ZZ's example will struggle to buy a place of her own many miles away. The fact that we can't house her in social housing is something we choose not to do because we do not choose to solve these problems socially. We leave it to a market that cannot provide. Easier to blame migrants.

 

so if we improve the economic wealth of the nation , then we can spend more on fixing the social problems of crime violence etc that usually goes up in overcrowded areas , if dont bleed millions of pounds to the EU then perhaps we may be better able to solve the core problems?

 

Lol at the ex-pat! ... I'm pretty certain the UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK. You cannot imagine how much more bleeds out of Germany but the bigger picture is stability and security, would we have that as a very outback 51st United State?

 

Not a polite way to open a post Godfather ! however I will refrain The united Kingdom functioned and functioned quite well historically being outside the EU .
We spend a lot more into the EU than we get back (not brilliant business)
This "expat" has lived and worked in several countries and has learnt basic fact you put square pegs in square holes , ie not best idea haveing french or german politicians deciding whats best for Britain.

lastly would suggest you have a read of this http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...1398869254/EuroManifestoLaunch.pdf?1398869254

 

For sure but Europe is where we trade most ... alienating ourselves is a big risk and don't pretend it won't happen. Even US companies will ignore our financial markets for what is bound to be an infinitely more powerful and lucrative DAX. Foreign manufacturers will set up elsewhere to be able sell their goods on the continent without duties and duties will make our own goods too expensive to sell there. In short Britain could, nay probably would, be left high and dry by the time the dust has settled. We may have functioned and prospered ourselves historically but in case you haven't noticed things have changed. So what should we do, start another empire? re-invade India?

 

Says who? The Daily Mirror?

 

No ... logic but then again if you're a sheep?

 

Is that the same logic you used when you worked out that receiving 1000's of immigrants into a community doesn't push the locals down the housing list? :sign15:

 

No it's the same logic that says 'now you are making things up'. It was you that suggested immigrants are being fast tracked ahead of British citizens when infact you only meant homeless immigrants ahead of already housed locals. Was I not allowed to question this?

 

UKIP are a laughing stock! To many foreigners taking British jobs? Don't worry we will use them!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...european-leaflet-distribution-_n_5279567.html

 

Is it not hypocritical for a party that bases it's whole philosophy on withdrawal from The EU and uses the argument that by being members we have no choice but to accept migrant workers from member states which then take away British jobs and then employs a company that does just that because it cheap? What rotten principles!

 

Jeez, this is hard work! It is so frustrating when people use pedantics to wriggle out of accepting an obvious truth.

Such a simple concept, yet so difficult for you to understand. I'll try again to explain it to you in very simple terms.

First of all, most people on a housing list are already housed, although the degree of how desperate they are, can vary greatly.

Normally, someone who is not homeless moves up the housing list over a period of time. But they can be overtaken by someone who is fast-tracked up the housing list due to them being homeless, or a particular urgency. That happens whether the homeless person is local or foreign.

Due the the fact that hundreds of immigrants coming over a short period of time, to a concentrated area, without roots, without family, without stable jobs, they are likely to be homeless souls amongst them and others will be on the same housing list, awaiting the same houses as the locals.

Extremely simple logic, for anyone that understands what logic means, implies that the presence of 6000 immigrants in Boston, Lincolnshire, means that a large number of locals do not get the houses they may have got otherwise, or the process will be slower. That means that national statistics have little bearing on what happens in places like Boston, which was my initial point point.

Is that simple enough for you?

 

Wriggle out! of what exactly? I tell it as I see it.

6000 homeless immigrants? ... no I thought not and even then there will be a variety of different sized needs, they're not all after your client's daughter's, would be, house. Define a large number and clarify how much longer she should wait than normal though I don't disagree that she must. Has the whole population of Boston just boomed overnight? Is more social housing being built? So many ambiguities but you feel you can blame immigrants, all immigrants for delaying some (how many?) residents move to a desired dwelling. I'm sure it's of little condolence for the young lady but as I've continually tried to point out, the root of the problem is not the workers that come here but the greed of those who seek their cheap labour. Having worked alongside enough of these folk to know, I think you'll find that very, very few are destitute and homeless and if they were they'd soon be off.

As with many Brits there will be a percentage of immigrants that abuse the system or are involved in crime and if they're caught they should be expelled. But to invite law abiders in, let them work and settle and then pull the rug for nothing more than to gain votes is just sick.

Oh BTW, when I first returned from Germany the first thing my wife and I did was apply for a council house in St Albans, we were still waiting practically three years later when we moved up North. This was before the Poles were eligible to work here so forgive me for wondering just how much of this girl's problem is actually only perceived?

 

For someone that is trying to give the impression that he is intelligent, why can you not read English? I said there will be "homeless amongst them" I didn't say all 6000 will be homeless. Why can't you read properly before disagreeing with it.

I was quite clear, you wriggle out of an obvious truth, that is that in influx of immigrants, in a concentrated area, over a relatively short time, slows down the locals ability to get housing. That isn't "perception", it's a matter of pure physics. Does anyone else, apart from you, in the world not understand this total common sense?

THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH HOUSES TO GO ROUND BEFORE AND NOW ( with 6000 arrivals) THERE IS A BIGGER LIST!!!!

Of course it hasn't been overnight, it has been over the past 5 or 6 years or so, a relatively short period of time when considering the speed of house building from conception, through planning to completion. I didn't say overnight!!! Read what I said, before you disagree with it!!!

It isn't about blame, I am stating the facts about the effects of immigration in some areas. In other areas the effects will be negligible. I have not even said that the immigrants abuse the system anymore than anyone else. I don't "blame" them in the least, I would probably do the same in their circumstances.

If you want to argue about blame, first acknowledge the problem -that there are too many people wanting too few houses and that immigrants make the situation worse in some areas.

This is what annoys me about you people. You just cannot accept the most basic obvious facts. If you admitted some things then your general argument would carry more weight. Instead it is twisting, spinning, denial and total BS.

Heavens above!

 

Surely ZZ your issue should be at the lack of housing, rather than immigrants if any Gov't decided to actually build some we might not have such an issue instead of scapegoating immigrants. I have no problems with immigrants if they pay their way like everyone else, and the majority do. The cost on the UK economy is minimal compared to things such as tax evasion, but people don't seem to mind about this.

 

Heavens above! Stop being paranoid I never really assumed you meant 6000 were looking for homes but maybe I should point out that it's approx 10% of the towns population. That's a lot but I wouldn't expect it to increase waiting time by huge amounts if the problem is actually being tackled in a proactive fashion. Unfortunately for your friend's girl the list for young singles is about as low a priority as it gets but it might help that most of the immigrants fall in this group too.

Only now you say it's not about blame and to me you've been quite circumspect. Forgive me for assuming that you had taken Ukip's stance.

 

Such mistakes happen when you make assumptions, just because of who is saying it, due to a pre-conceived view you have.

Because you think I am right wing, etc, then I must be a racist, or UKip fan, a greedy business owner, etc.

You think that if something is in The Mail, then it must be a lie.

Sometimes, if you take the time to actually read what is being said, you may not make so many mistakes by jumping to the wrong conclusions.

But apology accepted, thanks.

 

Good ... and who is "you people" by the way?

 

Question for opinions:

Is it better to fast-track an immigrant for a skill we need in this country but won't come if they otherwise can't afford housing, or fast track a stereotypical "single mum" who has not interest in working?

 

I will tell you that not everything in the daily mail is a lie, but nothing in the daily mail is a truth.

 

Not on this thread. I wasn't scapegoating, I was pointing out what is happening in some areas in response to a post that suggested that the immigrants are not really affecting things.

 

I'm confused about your '6000' ZZ. It seems they have just suddenly appeared on the thread. Is this Boston, or the whole of Lincolnshire, or is it just a hypothetical? How many people left in the same period?

As they are not all homeless then I presume many will have found other accommodation? Even if they are homeless they won't get anything until they have worked in the UK for a year, hard when you are homeless.

Isn't more likely that they solve their own housing problem or they go home? You need to show that immigrants do get council housing rather than you fear it is so. It's just not as simple as inventing a number and claiming 'logic' demands.

No one could claim that immigration has no impact whatsoever but without question we could leave the EU, restrict immigration and people like your client's daughter will still be poor and still struggle to be housed. There has always been someone taking up the supply of council housing according to the Mail. Normally it's blamed on single parents like your example.