Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

[Gramsci]

I don’t know. I’m just not convinced they’re in the interests of communities long term. If you go to an area where there is a lot of people on benefits compared to an area where there is a mix or majority working people you can see the difference. Literally see the despair. It costs nothing to keep your front garden tidy, to get your kids to school, to clean your home, take your kid to a GP appointment. But cycles of poverty and violence and benefits trap people (like Darren McGarvey shows).

Now one lens- the left- says give people more money in benefits and reduce poverty and you’ll break the cycle.

The other says the dependency and lack of self esteem and pride and meaning from working and contributing can’t be solved by giving more money making work pay less. In fact all you well meaningly do is perpetuate it.

I genuinely don’t know what I think rn.

But it’s not got much to do with immigrants- they rarely claim benefits, work hard, and their kids tend to do very well in school. Because they take opportunities. And good for them.

Your the one who brought up dependency culture and welfare on this thread not me.

I started to get annoyed when you start the post with---- I don't know

You come out with right wing tropes then when asked back off with the I don't know. Every time

 

[Edie]

Nah. It's because he wants to earn shit loads of money.

And society is twisted in such a way that someone with a level of physics training that only a tiny percentage of people are even capable of achieving will be tempted away like this into socially useless work.

And believe me, banks/hedge funds etc do pay shit loads of money to attract the highest-achieving physics/maths grads. It's a massive waste.

Give over. Good for him. And the financial industry pumps money into this country. So he’ll be making a good contribution to society as well. Let’s wish him well cos he’ll be paying more tax a month than many will in a year.

 

[Edie]

Your the one who brought up dependency culture and welfare on this thread not me.

I started to get annoyed when you start the post with---- I don't know

You come out with right wing tropes then when asked back off with the I don't know. Every time

Put me on ignore then

 

[Gramsci]

Put me on ignore then

I do get a bit worked up.

Im going to take a spin in my Porsche and chill out.

Wealth isn't everything you know.

 

[PTK]

.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Give over. Good for him. And the financial industry pumps money into this country. So he’ll be making a good contribution to society as well. Let’s wish him well cos he’ll be paying more tax a month than many will in a year.

To make a brain like that spend its time thinking about how to create the best financial instrument for XYZ investment? Such a waste for all of us.

Finance takes more than it gives back, but that's probably a subject for another thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don’t know. I’m just not convinced they’re in the interests of communities long term. If you go to an area where there is a lot of people on benefits compared to an area where there is a mix or majority working people you can see the difference. Literally see the despair. It costs nothing to keep your front garden tidy, to get your kids to school, to clean your home, take your kid to a GP appointment. But cycles of poverty and violence and benefits trap people (like Darren McGarvey shows).

Now one lens- the left- says give people more money in benefits and reduce poverty and you’ll break the cycle.

The other says the dependency and lack of self esteem and pride and meaning from working and contributing can’t be solved by giving more money making work pay less. In fact all you well meaningly do is perpetuate it.

I genuinely don’t know what I think rn.

But it’s not got much to do with immigrants- they rarely claim benefits, work hard, and their kids tend to do very well in school. Because they take opportunities. And good for them.

I don't know how you've obtained your gardening equipment or your washing up liquid, hoover, bleach etc but most people have to pay for them - it's not like it really costs nothing to keep your front garden tidy or clean your home. Many councils now charge for collecting garden waste too. But above all that I wonder where you get this divide between people claiming benefits and people working, like there's no overlap between the two.

 

[PTK]

" And the financial industry pumps money into this country. "

How does it do that then? It does not create anything. It just pushes around the wealth others have created.

Public services and infrastructure have declined, so clearly the wealth accumulated by these organisations is not being used to improve our lives.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How does it do that then? It does not create anything. It just pushes around the wealth others have created.

Public services and infrastructure have declined, so clearly the wealth accumulated by these organisations is not being used to improve our lives.

The banking system should have been nationalised in 2008. Could have done it too. It was on its knees.

It's beyond a sick joke that one of the fuckers who made millions out of creating the Credit Crunch ended up Prime Minister. Twisted.

 

[Gramsci]

I don’t know. I’m just not convinced they’re in the interests of communities long term. If you go to an area where there is a lot of people on benefits compared to an area where there is a mix or majority working people you can see the difference. Literally see the despair. It costs nothing to keep your front garden tidy, to get your kids to school, to clean your home, take your kid to a GP appointment. But cycles of poverty and violence and benefits trap people (like Darren McGarvey shows).

In previous posts you have gone on about Islington women and their patronising attitudes about immigration. There lack of understanding. Being out of touch.

Where do I start with your attitudes to people on benefits?

 

[SpookyFrank]

And the financial industry pumps money into this country.

And yet the bigger the financial sector gets, the poorer we all seem to be for it.

Everyone except coke dealers anyway.

 

[Edie]

How does it do that then? It does not create anything. It just pushes around the wealth others have created.

Public services and infrastructure have declined, so clearly the wealth accumulated by these organisations is not being used to improve our lives.

According to the latest available data from the ONS, across their domestic and international activities, financial and related professional services contributed £275bn to UK gross value added (GVA) in 2022, representing around £12 of every £100 of economic output.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's an appalling situation alright.

 

[Gramsci]

Does Edie realise one of the reasons other parts of the country are blighted is that Thatcher started the move of the economy from making stuff to financial services.

Which is why London is seen as better off than the rest of the country.

Why there is resentment in other regions to point where even Tories thought the rhetoric of levelling up was essential for votes?

 

[Edie]

In previous posts you have gone on about Islington women and their patronising attitudes about immigration. There lack of understanding. Being out of touch.

Where do I start with your attitudes to people on benefits?

People need opportunities not handouts. Access to training, financial support to retrain (nursing of course should be free to train in, as should many vocational courses). Childcare should be provided if wanted. And caring is of course work, including unpaid caring that women tend to do of small children and the elderly, that could and should be paid.

But at the end of the day the time you are given unemployment benefit if you are not caring and just out of work should be time-limited. After that it’s get a job and work your way up.

Do you disagree with this?

 

[Dystopiary]

I don't know how you've obtained your gardening equipment or your washing up liquid, hoover, bleach etc but most people have to pay for them - it's not like it really costs nothing to keep your front garden tidy or clean your home. Many councils now charge for collecting garden waste too. But above all that I wonder where you get this divide between people claiming benefits and people working, like there's no overlap between the two.

It's incredibly difficult these days to receive benefits whilst not working. To get sickness benefits you have to go through never ending test after test, treated like utter shit. Anything else you have to be shown to be looking for work, any work, work you haven't a chance of doing, applying for interviews you're unlikely to get for no other reason than to show the DWP that's what you're doing. And then there's the stigma heaped on by the corporate media. Relentless either way.

 

[Gramsci]

People need opportunities not handouts. Access to training, financial support to retrain (nursing of course should be free to train in, as should many vocational courses). Childcare should be provided if wanted. And caring is of course work, including unpaid caring that women tend to do of small children and the elderly, that could and should be paid.

But at the end of the day the time you are given unemployment benefit if you are not caring and just out of work should be time-limited. After that it’s get a job and work your way up.

Do you disagree with this?

Sorry to have to explain this to you but the benefits system in this country is not that easy to navigate or get long term.

So where you get this idea about handouts I don't know.

It's you that's brought up the issue of welfare dependency as you have brought up concerns about immigration. On the same thread.

Over years both immigration policy and policy on "handouts" has been tightened up considerably

So I'm not sure what you are asking me about.

As the system as it works now appears to be in line with what you want.

Except cutting off benefits if you don't get a job. So I assume its begging after that? If you haven't pulled your socks up and got a job. FFS you should listen to how you go on sometimes.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Does Edie realise one of the reasons other parts of the country are blighted is that Thatcher started the move of the economy from making stuff to financial services.

Which is why London is seen as better off than the rest of the country.

Why there is resentment in other regions to point where even Tories thought the rhetoric of levelling up was essential for votes?

And London itself has become increasingly unliveable for anyone not earning the absurd money of bankers, precisely because of the presence of those bankers.

 

[Gramsci]

And London itself has become increasingly unliveable for anyone not earning the absurd money of bankers, precisely because of the presence of those bankers.

Yes but as Edie says its good for the economy. If you live a life of Porsche driving the financial sector is great.

I sometimes listen to Bloomberg radio on DAB. It's not directed at me and probably they assume someone like me would not listen.

Its quite revealing how these financial people go on when they think they are talking amongst themselves.

Definitely worth tuning into. Not just being here in my leftie bubble but listening to real world business

 

[littlebabyjesus]

People need opportunities not handouts. Access to training, financial support to retrain (nursing of course should be free to train in, as should many vocational courses). Childcare should be provided if wanted. And caring is of course work, including unpaid caring that women tend to do of small children and the elderly, that could and should be paid.

But at the end of the day the time you are given unemployment benefit if you are not caring and just out of work should be time-limited. After that it’s get a job and work your way up.

Do you disagree with this?

I disagree with this.

A universal income for everyone. Not loads, but enough to get by. No obligation to work. Let the employers line up for the interviews. So, why should I come work for you, then?

Easy to administer, too. It could be done using the existing tax system by starting everyone off on negative income tax.

 

[Humberto]

And inequality is quite pernicious in and of itself for society and the majority who live in it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What limited studies there have been on a universal income (there was a trial recently in Wales) have all shown the same thing: people generally don't just sit on their arses; it's not a good way to go through life. But if some people want to? Let them crack on. At least they're not investment bankers.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And yes edie, you read me correctly. I think everyone should be given free money.

 

[Gramsci]

What I find interesting is that someone so concerned about the effect of immigration on the working classes also think the working classes should be left penniless if they don't get a job.

And why is welfare dependency got into in a discussion about immigration?

 

[Serge Forward]

People need opportunities not handouts. Access to training, financial support to retrain (nursing of course should be free to train in, as should many vocational courses). Childcare should be provided if wanted. And caring is of course work, including unpaid caring that women tend to do of small children and the elderly, that could and should be paid.

But at the end of the day the time you are given unemployment benefit if you are not caring and just out of work should be time-limited. After that it’s get a job and work your way up.

Do you disagree with this?

The crap you've posted on this thread... I'm now waiting for a "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" comment for a full house.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What I find interesting is that someone so concerned about the effect of immigration on the working classes also think the working classes should be left penniless if they don't get a job.

And why is welfare dependency got into a discussion about immigration?

Well there is a complication with univeral income ideas, which is working out who would be eligible for it. I admit that this is a tricky one. In that sense, there is a link.

 

[Gramsci]

Well there is a complication with univeral income ideas, which is working out who would be eligible for it. I admit that this is a tricky one. In that sense, there is a link.

Sorry I think you misunderstood my post. Wasnt having a dig at your post on universal income. It was about Edie posting here

 

[Elpenor]

It's incredibly difficult these days to receive benefits whilst not working. To get sickness benefits you have to go through never ending test after test, treated like utter shit. Anything else you have to be shown to be looking for work, any work, work you haven't a chance of doing, applying for interviews you're unlikely to get for no other reason than to show the DWP that's what you're doing. And then there's the stigma heaped on by the corporate media. Relentless either way.

The level of hatred out there for folk on benefits is unreal. It was only a few days ago someone on another forum I frequent posted this:

Someone I worked with (30-31) was in universal credit

During the time I worked with her she had several weekend breaks abroad as well as normal holidays abroad

Regularly topped up her tattoo collection and twice took a day off work to spend £250+ on tattoo session lasting all day
She also went to turkey for a boob job ….. then had to use a&e due to serious infection

Not saying she was the norm but being in benefits doesn’t stop spending

So from this post:

People receiving benefits shouldn’t:

• Take weekend breaks
• Take holidays
• Get tattoos
• Use the NHS when seriously ill
• Spend any money on anything other than approved items

The interesting thing for me was that this person in the - perhaps fictional - example was receiving UC whilst in work. So the money being received from UC is presumably to top up low wages. It’s no business of her employer what she spends her wages on so why should it be the business of DWP / a taxpayer what benefits are spent on?

As context, the other forum has a high proportion of people who could afford to retire from work in their 50s or earlier. If not natural Tories, then certainly their retirement assets mean they have become primarily concerned with protecting their capital. These are people who have probably never needed the safety net and so don’t realise how threadbare it is.

Another poster on this forum said something which went even further

And how many on disability? When the majority of them could work…

Caveat I’m not a UK tax payer and haven’t been for many years…

What about the millions living on benefits with no intention of getting a job? That would save billions!!!!

To their credit, some other members of this forum commented that not everyone is able to work due to health reasons; one cited their severely disabled child who needs 24/7 care. I - somewhat more flippantly - mentioned how little the UC amount I received a few years was and I doubted that would have covered the cost of a boob job, though I didn’t think to get any quotes

I suspect for a lot of people benefits are something that other people shouldn’t get (the opposite of tax which is something other people should pay)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sorry I think you misunderstood my post. Wasnt having a dig at your post on universal income

No I didn't think you were. It's something I've thought quite a lot about, though, and there is a link to immigration there - these things would need to be thought through carefully to avoid iniquitous situations - would probably need a separate tax system for those not receiving the UI.

Just thinking aloud, that's all.

 

[scifisam]

People need opportunities not handouts. Access to training, financial support to retrain (nursing of course should be free to train in, as should many vocational courses). Childcare should be provided if wanted. And caring is of course work, including unpaid caring that women tend to do of small children and the elderly, that could and should be paid.

But at the end of the day the time you are given unemployment benefit if you are not caring and just out of work should be time-limited. After that it’s get a job and work your way up.

Do you disagree with this?

I do disagree with your second sentence. Sometimes the jobs aren't there, or they're completely unrealistic jobs - out of town where you need a car (and there's no govt support to learn to drive), shifts you can't manage with older kids/other caring responsibilities that aren't full time but are important, or the govt claims they have provided "courses" but the courses are CV writing repeatedly for six weeks.

If there are time limits and no jobs, what are people supposed to do? Crime seems the only real answer. Moving house often is not feasible, especially because the places with more jobs cost more to live in, because they have more jobs.

Very few people on unemployment benefits want to stay on them because they just don't pay enough. Some of them give it all the Billy big-balls and act as if they're doing great, and you might have met them, but they are lying.