Griffin and BNP strategy

[durruti02]

I agree with you without immigration the health service would have collapsed years ago. But the present levels of immigration are IMO unsustainable. I know Teachers who struggle due to having so many kids in their classes who speak English as a second language. Courts and Hospitals all need to spend more resources on interpreters.
Councils up and down the country are struggling to cope with a huge influx of people wanting existing and new services.

There is only so much housing and so much room. Wouldnt it be better to campaign for better wages and conditions in the countries that people come from?

disagree re NHS .. there are enough people who would like to work there but not with spiv conditions/wages

 

[audiotech]

not true/ you are wrong and something we have been through on here i think on the immigration/thatcherism thread .. maybe you missed it

thatcher changed housing allocation in favour of family size as opposed to local connections, and so a large migrant family will 'jump the queue'

also she did not say that migrants should be treated like second class citizens.

get your head around that supporting people where you live is NOT reactionary and the sooner the left do it the sooner the right will fade away

Priority is given to those with children and size only comes into it in relation to the house - one, two, three and four bedroomed properties. Overcrowding is a particular concern for authorities. The sex of the siblings is also taken into account with regards to number of bedrooms.

Allocation is based on the individuals circumstances in relation to the property vacant. So, there are a multiple of reasons why someone will be allocated a property and another won't be.

As you can see, more complex than your "large migrant family will 'jump the queue'" comment.

 

[durruti02]

Priority is given to those with children and size only comes into it in relation to the house - one, two, three and four bedroomed properties. Overcrowding is a particular concern for authorities. The sex of the siblings is also taken into account with regards to number of bedrooms.

Allocation is based on the individuals circumstances in relation to the property vacant. So, there are a multiple of reasons why someone will be allocated a property and another won't be.

As you can see, more complex than your "large migrant family will 'jump the queue'" comment.

yes i agree .. yes it is of course more complex .. things always are .. but the/my point is essentially right that under thatcher the balance changed from local connection to family size

i know this is intenet and it is hard to pick things up sometimes but i thought maybe you would realise that when i used ' jump the queue' in inverted commas it is to illustarte that that is how these things are percieved .. no one jumps .. we are all allocated

 

[becky p]

Really? I don't know how you worked that one out. How am I "pushing more people towards the BNP"? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Anyone who advocates tighter controls shares the BNP's pov.

Oh, and Margaret Hodge protected kiddy fiddlers when she was Leader of Islington Council. She's barking mad...if you'll pardon the pun.

You are pushing people towards the BNP by insisting that anyone who questions the present levels of migration to the UK shares the same views as the BNP. Its an incredibly stupid thing to say. The BNPs opposition to immigration has always been based on race.
You have not posted one single bit of evidence that proves any of the very many people who disagree with doon the basis of their racism.

Oh, and the BNP probably said exactly the same about Margaret Hodge.
Which if i follow your reasoning means you have been helping them again.
Well done.

 

[becky p]

disagree re NHS .. there are enough people who would like to work there but not with spiv conditions/wages

But without higher taxes or cuts in other areas that can't happen.
So we should all be grateful that people come here to work for the NHS.

 

[audiotech]

yes i agree .. yes it is of course more complex .. things always are .. but the/my point is essentially right that under thatcher the balance changed from local connection to family size

i know this is intenet and it is hard to pick things up sometimes but i thought maybe you would realise that when i used ' jump the queue' in inverted commas it is to illustarte that that is how these things are percieved .. no one jumps .. we are all allocated

Different perception given here:

There was also surprise that a Labour minister should be advocating priority for "indigenous" families. "Isn't that the BNP's line?" asked Mark Gutteridge, an unemployed 25-year-old who said he had been on the council housing list for around three years. Standing at the foot of a 12-storey block on the Gascoigne estate, he added: "They're not such great homes. The lifts don't work and the corridors smell of piss. But everyone who's asking for one of these places should be treated equally.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2085206,00.html

FAQ Social housing

How is social housing allocated?

Local authorities must publish details of which groups have priority, generally using a points system. "Reasonable preference" must be given to categories including the homeless, those in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing, and people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds

Can immigrants jump the queue?

Some foreign nationals are eligible for social housing, but if they were considered a priority it would be because they were in an established category. Asylum seekers and those from outside the European Economic Area are not eligible. The former are generally given accommodation by the Home Office.

Is there a shortage of social housing?

There are about 4m homes in the social housing sector. The Liberal Democrats say there are 1.5 million families on council house waiting lists.

What is being done about it?

The government is aiming for 75,000 new social rented homes over the three years to April 2008; but it admits that provision this year will not meet all newly arising need.

 

[nino_savatte]

Funnily enough, the only high profile type who agrees with durutti is Margaret Hodge. Says a lot really.

 

[audiotech]

Funnily enough, the only high profile type who agrees with durutti is Margaret Hodge. Says a lot really.

It does.

 

[nino_savatte]

It does.

LOL!!!

 

[portman]

Different perception given here:

Is there a shortage of social housing?

There are about 4m homes in the social housing sector. The Liberal Democrats say there are 1.5 million families on council house waiting lists.

What is being done about it?

The government is aiming for 75,000 new social rented homes over the three years to April 2008; but it admits that provision this year will not meet all newly arising need.

Apologies for the selective quote but the last two points really did jump out. Particularly the 75,000 new social rented homes over three years. In a word, that is bloody pathetic. That level of completion is not even scratching the surface of the problem of a chronic shortage of affordable homes, whether to rent or buy. A problem caused by historic low levels of new home construction and one that isn't going to go away until those levels start to rise. Racking up the number of new home completions was an idea I was mooting while out on the doorstep during the election and got a positive response to. Rather than arguing about allocation policies - which is exactly what the BNP want us to do - calling for a vast increase in the building of new homes might get the agenda of the debate on a more progressive footing. Just a thought...

 

[becky p]

Apologies for the selective quote but the last two points really did jump out. Particularly the 75,000 new social rented homes over three years. In a word, that is bloody pathetic. That level of completion is not even scratching the surface of the problem of a chronic shortage of affordable homes, whether to rent or buy. A problem caused by historic low levels of new home construction and one that isn't going to go away until those levels start to rise. Racking up the number of new home completions was an idea I was mooting while out on the doorstep during the election and got a positive response to. Rather than arguing about allocation policies - which ios exactly what the BNP want us to do - calling for a vast increase in the building of new homes might get the agenda of the debate on a more progressive footing. Just a thought...

Where would you build those homes though? And how progressive is it to argue that the UK should be taking more workers from other countries?

 

[treelover]

The Trotskite left are dinosaurs and will soon disappear just as they did

 

[nino_savatte]

The Trotskite left are dinosaurs and will soon disappear just as they did

That's right, if one doesn't agree with your ideas on immigration, they are automatically labelled "trots". I suppose it's a change from the "enemy within" or some such nonsense.

 

[durruti02]

It does.

the irony of this is that while i have been opposed hodge ( who is a typical m/c blairite scumbag who has seen her vote collapse due to her and her govts policies) and her ilk for many many years and try to organise independant opposition, your policy in this area is that people should VOTE for her .. oh dear :

 

[nino_savatte]

So what does Hodge to do to fight the BNP? I'll tell you what she does - nothing.

 

[durruti02]

So what does Hodge to do to fight the BNP? I'll tell you she does - nothing.

nino i agree with you 100% .. indeed worse .. she and her mates are the cause of the problems .. for her to some how suggest that immigranats just appear here and 'take peoples housing is a lie .. as John Cruddas next door as said the govt. is firmly behind the process as it tries to copy what he calls the low wage 'north american model' ... just cos some of what she says is correct doesn't mean she is not a two faced hypocrite

 

[nino_savatte]

nino i agree with you 100% .. indeed worse .. she and her mates are the cause of the problems .. for her to some how suggest that immigranats just appear here and 'take peoples housing is a lie .. as John Cruddas next door as said the govt. is firmly behind the process as it tries to copy what he calls the low wage 'north american model' ... just cos some of what she says is correct doesn't mean she is not a two faced hypocrite

Well, she wrings her hands and spews out some very inflammatory statements. She has never had much interest in people, she is interested in power and as a career politician, her sole objective is to cling onto her seat by any means necessary and lick the collective backside of the Leadership.

 

[durruti02]

The Trotskite left are dinosaurs and will soon disappear just as they did

i wish it was as easy as this .. they have a strangle hold on what is called the left in this country .. respect uaf etc etc .. when a w/c person come s into contact with the left this is the nonsense they get .. and it is disasterous .. anti w/c and pro state/cbi!! incredible no wonder people are going toward the bnp

 

[nino_savatte]

I don't think that Trotskyites have a "stranglehold on the Left" in this country. I think people tend to exaggerate the importance and influence of the SWP in particular.

 

[durruti02]

Well, she wrings her hands and spews out some very inflammatory statements. She has never had much interest in people, she is interested in power and as a career politician, her sole objective is to cling onto her seat by any means necessary and lick the collective backside of the Leadership.

nino again i agree with you 100% .. that is what these people do .. that does not mean we must ignore what they say .. we must look exactly at what they say and interpret their motives .. cynical she is yes but why did she choose what she said?? sadly because there is an element of truth .. it is that we need to understand /.. what scum like her and griffin USE .. we need to see what is right and how we can get a workerist angle in it .. on racism there is NO debate .. we are 100% opposed .. but on immigration and housing clearly there is a debate .. why it occurs who it effect and how and what is our response ..

 

[nino_savatte]

nino again i agree with you 100% .. that is what these people do .. that does not mean we must ignore what they say .. we must look exactly at what they say and interpret their motives .. cynical she is yes but why did she choose what she said?? sadly because there is an element of truth .. it is that we need to understand /.. what scum like her and griffin USE .. we need to see what is right and how we can get a workerist angle in it .. on racism there is NO debate .. we are 100% opposed .. but on immigration and housing clearly there is a debate .. why it occurs who it effect and how and what is our response ..

The trouble is, her contention that "immigrants" (sic) go to the top of the housing list is not supported by any evidence.

Again, there appears to be a problem with definitions: there is a quantifiable difference between immigrants, migrant workers and refugees. Is it right to force refugees to sleep on the street? These people have fled violence and oppression in their own countries and when they come here, they're treated like dreck and forced to live in detention camps like Campsfield.

 

[durruti02]

The trouble is, her contention that "immigrants" (sic) go to the top of the housing list is not supported by any evidence.

Again, there appears to be a problem with definitions: there is a quantifiable difference between immigrants, migrant workers and refugees. Is it right to force refugees to sleep on the street? These people have fled violence and oppression in their own countries and when they come here, they're treated like dreck and forced to live in detention camps like Campsfield.

have you been to 'shut down campsfield' demos? i have so don't lecture me on that .. and no of course immigrants do not deserve shit .. all they are doing is trying to better themselves ,.. but due to neo lib policies they are victims .. but not just them .. indiginous workers are too

please read what i post .. i have always been clear on teh differrence between migrnats and refugees and i have always said refugees should be looked after .. actually i would go further and suggest that unions and workers organisations should help them too

the problem comes when people mostly better of, but whose standard of living is declining, see the left doing more for refugees and economic migrants than themselves .. this is the pickle the left have got into and means we/they are almost non existant in a whole swath of w/c britain

re evidence on housing .. you are wrong .. the tories changed housing allocation in the early 8ts so that it favours more family size than local connections .. this has meant that an immigrant family with a number of kids will get housed before a young local couple .. in many ways this is right, there is clearly more IMMEDIATE need BUT it will cause resentment and does nothing for community sustainability . i would argue it should be managed locally ..

and fundamentally in it brings us back to the reason for economic migration in the first place in a country with millions unemployed .. it is not neccessary and only exists to make spivs money

 

[nino_savatte]

have you been to 'shut down campsfield' demos? i have so don't lecture me on that .. and no of course immigrants do not deserve shit .. all they are doing is trying to better themselves ,.. but due to neo lib policies they are victims .. but not just them .. indiginous workers are too

please read what i post .. i have always been clear on teh differrence between migrnats and refugees and i have always said refugees should be looked after .. actually i would go further and suggest that unions and workers organisations should help them too

the problem comes when people mostly better of, but whose standard of living is declining, see the left doing more for refugees and economic migrants than themselves .. this is the pickle the left have got into and means we/they are almost non existant in a whole swath of w/c britain

re evidence on housing .. you are wrong .. the tories changed housing allocation in the early 8ts so that it favours more family size than local connections .. this has meant that an immigrant family with a number of kids will get housed before a young local couple .. in many ways this is right, there is clearly more IMMEDIATE need BUT it will cause resentment and does nothing for community sustainability . i would argue it should be managed locally ..

and fundamentally in it brings us back to the reason for economic migration in the first place in a country with millions unemployed .. it is not neccessary and only exists to make spivs money

You're so fucking arrogant... "read what I post". That's your reply for everything.

You clearly do no know the difference between an immigrant, a migrant worker and a refugee because you constantly refer to immigrants as "migrants" and "refugees" as "immigrants"

re evidence on housing .. you are wrong

I'd like to see your evidence that "immigrants" are being given priority over "whites" in social housing. It's easy to say "you're wrong" but where is your proof?

the problem comes when people mostly better of, but whose standard of living is declining, see the left doing more for refugees and economic migrants than themselves

What? What is being done for refugees? Bugger all, that's what. They're sent to detention camps or they're being pilloried in the tabloid press. What would you like to see? Refugees sleeping on the street? These people have fled conditions that none of us could ever imagine but what happens when they come here? They're scapegoated.

 

[Knotted]

You clearly do no know the difference between an immigrant, a migrant worker and a refugee because you constantly refer to immigrants as "migrants" and "refugees" as "immigrants"

There is no generally agreed upon definitions for these words. If you wish to define them in a certain way then make it clear.

 

[nino_savatte]

There is no generally agreed upon definitions for these words. If you wish to define them in a certain way then make it clear.

Oh, catch yourself on. You really do spout some fucking shite, don't you?

 

[durruti02]

You're so fucking arrogant... "read what I post". That's your reply for everything.

You clearly do no know the difference between an immigrant, a migrant worker and a refugee because you constantly refer to immigrants as "migrants" and "refugees" as "immigrants"



I'd like to see your evidence that "immigrants" are being given priority over "whites" in social housing. It's easy to say "you're wrong" but where is your proof?



What? What is being done for refugees? Bugger all, that's what. They're sent to detention camps or they're being pilloried in the tabloid press. What would you like to see? Refugees sleeping on the street? These people have fled conditions that none of us could ever imagine but what happens when they come here? They're scapegoated.

sorry?? arrogent??! you assume far to much i said please read what i have said as i felt you had not and hence got wrong what i was saying

re migrant or refgee, well it is not entirely clear .. i see it as a refugee is someone fleeing a physical danger as opposed to an economic migrant who chooses ( relucantly usually) to migrate to get money or a better life .. of course there are grey areas ..

re housing first i do not understand why you mention 'whites' i certainly have not .. indeed where i am a majority of local people are BME .. this is the community i always have at the back of my mind ..

and again i have not said what you suggest .. i have not said that per se immigrnats get priority over locals ... what i have said is that there is however much evidence that immigrants, with families, in immediate need ( so NOT immigrants without families and not in need) get priority over locals without families and NOT in immediate need. This is well known and there has been much discussion about it over the last 20 years .. links to i have previosly posted

i don't understand your last paragaph at all though. Is it aimed at me????? .. i entirely agree with you it is a disgrace refugees are treated .. i have JUST posted that i support/have been at 'shut down campsfield' etc and i believe unions and communities should help house refugees, as well as the state, so i have to say that yet again you appear not to have read what i am saying

 

[durruti02]

Oh, catch yourself on. You really do spout some fucking shite, don't you?

nino .. please .. try to not assume the worst .. just say to yourself that knotted is asking you for your definitions and do just that .. in fact knotted and LnL and all lets all try to stop tit for tat? yes??

 

[portman]

Where would you build those homes though? And how progressive is it to argue that the UK should be taking more workers from other countries?

When it comes to the area I live, Thurrock, the answer's simple - on the Green Belt. Okay, I'm not advocating covering every square mile of the countryside in buildings but there are plenty of acres of Green Belt land in Thurrock whose only purpose is to stifle the development of any new housing. I'm talking about almost treeless semi-moonscapes with hedges full of flytipped rubbish and fields dotted with abandoned, burnt out vehicles. Land that has no aesthetic value at all. Land that could be used to build the homes we need, with all the infrastructure for a successful community, and with parks and trees included in the process of development.

When I was out canvassing for the IWCA during the local elections, rather than get into a debate about how what little social housing is left gets allocated, I was turning the discussion around to how few homes are actually getting built. Many people did agree with the commonsense solution of building more homes.

While the BNP bang on about the unfairness of housing allocation policy, in the same manifesto, the numbskulls oppose the one solution to the problem - building homes on the Green Belt! As did UKIP as well. The only people who are going to benefit from that are those who own their homes and see them as an investment for their future. The kind of people who see any possibility of new large scale housing development threatening their interests. People with a 'pull up the drawbridge' mentality. Bitter Mail and Express readers - classic targets for the far right.

 

[durruti02]

When it comes to the area I live, Thurrock, the answer's simple - on the Green Belt. Okay, I'm not advocating covering every square mile of the countryside in buildings but there are plenty of acres of Green Belt land in Thurrock whose only purpose is to stifle the development of any new housing. I'm talking about almost treeless semi-moonscapes with hedges full of flytipped rubbish and fields dotted with abandoned, burnt out vehicles. Land that has no aesthetic value at all. Land that could be used to build the homes we need, with all the infrastructure for a successful community, and with parks and trees included in the process of development.

When I was out canvassing for the IWCA during the local elections, rather than get into a debate about how what little social housing is left gets allocated, I was turning the discussion around to how few homes are actually getting built. Many people did agree with the commonsense solution of building more homes.

While the BNP bang on about the unfairness of housing allocation policy, in the same manifesto, the numbskulls oppose the one solution to the problem - building homes on the Green Belt! As did UKIP as well. The only people who are going to benefit from that are those who own their homes and see them as an investment for their future. The kind of people who see any possibility of new large scale housing development threatening their interests. People with a 'pull up the drawbridge' mentality. Bitter Mail and Express readers - classic targets for the far right.

Hi portman

i have to say i would be against building in the green belt too, speaking selfishly as a inner city dweller who finds the countryside getting further and further away. I understand the poor nature of the plain where you are, but it would be put to better use for food for local communities maybe with small associated villages. Tbh they are already plannning tens of thousends of new houses in Thames Gateway.

politicaly though the issue is NOT housing. There is no shortage of housing in the north. Indeed the Pathfinder scheme wants to bulldoze hundreds of thousends of houses. What is the issue is that the south east is over heated by the City. This has both drawn in immigrants ( uk and outside) and seen City boys investing their million pound bonuses in sepeculative housing schemes. London conceivably could expand for years to come. Politically i would think this needs to be stated/challenged.

i would argue that while resources are still limited we still need to argue that local connection should get more ( not total) priority. I also think we need to be capable of arguing about the unneccessary nature or current immigration, and how it is used to get out of training and employing our youth

 

[nino_savatte]

nino .. please .. try to not assume the worst .. just say to yourself that knotted is asking you for your definitions and do just that .. in fact knotted and LnL and all lets all try to stop tit for tat? yes??

Well, he (as well as you) appear to have a problem differentiating between immigrants, refugees and migrant workers.

Knotted is playing silly buggers - as usual.