George Osborne orders deeper cuts after next election

[formant]

Anyway, they don't have to come and work here, it will be better if they know that as non-UK citizens they will not be able to rely on benefits.

Allowing them to come here under certain conditions is not penalising them, because again, nobody is forcing them to come here.

Okay, so you two would want to set a precedent whereby you can take certain rights away from immigrants/EU migrants in advance on the basis that they consented to this by coming to the country in the first place. They are - in your opinion - not penalised, as they could have chosen not to come. Do you not see how this is setting a pretty clear precedent for removing ANY right a British resident may otherwise have? Are you explicitly stating that because they came willingly it's okay to treat them as secondary to the native-born population, despite subjecting them to the same duties (tax/NI) whilst in work?

If so - no words. Anti-immigration wouldn't be strong enough a word to describe what you actually are.

May also be worth remembering that by working (and paying tax/NI) in the UK, people generally lose access to many benefits in their home country (this is particularly the case for maternity benefits, such as SMP and Maternity Allowance). Also, whilst you may think that when out of work they could just "go home" to claim benefits, I think you're ignoring that many of them will by the time they may need to claim some benefits have been here (paying into the system) for many years, decades in some cases and are often now married (often enough to British citizens) with children settled in UK schools. But I guess they should have thought about that in advance and just stayed away (in your opinion).

As the statistics I've posted previously clearly show, immigrants/EU migrants are significantly less likely to claim benefits than British citizens, so you're basing all your ideas on something that isn't actually currently a problem (despite what newspapers like the Wail would like you to believe).

[darmstadt]

Not sure what your point is, I am stating that benefits should only be paid to UK citizens.

If someone wants to come to the UK to work, it should be on the understanding that they cannot claim benefits. Nice and simple.

I am against immigration but it does not follow that means I am racist, I am not.

Linking anti-immigration with being racist is the same mistake Gordon Brown made in the election with the lady from Rochdale.

The UK is full up and that is the only reason I am against any more being let in, our roads, hospitals, doctor's waiting rooms, schools are creaking at the seams. It is just common sense.

Eh? Although I'm still a UK citizen as I hold a GB passport I haven't paid into the UK system for over 25 years now yet by my understanding I can come back to the UK and claim benefits yet, say an EU national, who has worked and paid into the UK system for 25 years can't. Please explain that?

[Waldorf]

Immigrants including those from the EU can't vote in parliamentary elections unless they are from Ireland.

Legally you are correct, but voter registration is highly flawed, anyone or anything can register, we often see cases of dogs and cats getting a voting card. There is no check when you go to vote, if you are registered you can vote. EU citizens can vote in EU elections.

So yes it may suit Labour councillors to have lots of immigrants in their area but judging from voter turnout in local elections I doubt it.

Immigration suits big business leaders more than anyone else. Having lots of people who are eager to do your work for a static pay level over the years, simply because they don't know the benefits system,their rights and what is a living wage means you can make more money.

Of all those claims, stating that immigrants do not know what benefits they can claim is very naive.

[Waldorf]

Funny how you presume people who disagree with you vote Labour.

Oddly I have spent time with Conservative and Lib Dem politicians, so I'm fully aware that not all Tories are anti-Europe. Most of them keep their mouths shut as they don't want to be ripped apart in the media over any views.

The closest I've got to a left wing view is having in depth conversations with a Green party candidate. He was more interested in increasing their voting share than anything else as he knew they wouldn't get elected.

Oh and I live in an area where they is often not any Labour local election candidates as they would lose their deposits.

BTW where did I say there were not jobs? One of my posts pointed out the 6-12 week period which is the average people stay on the dole. The reason our benefits bill is high is because taxpayers subsidise those on low wages in the wrong way.

Ah, but you do fail to deal with my points. You don't say that you are not a Labour supporter, just that you have spent time with politicians of all colours?

The "jobs" comment related to your point that benefits are needed for people who cannot get a job straight away. My point is that there are jobs, some poorly paid, but that many choose not to work but sponge off the state and tax payers instead.

[Waldorf]

Okay, so you two would want to set a precedent whereby you can take certain rights away from immigrants/EU migrants in advance on the basis that they consented to this by coming to the country in the first place. They are - in your opinion - not penalised, as they could have chosen not to come. Do you not see how this is setting a pretty clear precedent for removing ANY right a British resident may otherwise have? Are you explicitly stating that because they came willingly it's okay to treat them as secondary to the native-born population, despite subjecting them to the same duties (tax/NI) whilst in work?

If so - no words. Anti-immigration wouldn't be strong enough a word to describe what you actually are.

May also be worth remembering that by working (and paying tax/NI) in the UK, people generally lose access to many benefits in their home country (this is particularly the case for maternity benefits, such as SMP and Maternity Allowance). Also, whilst you may think that when out of work they could just "go home" to claim benefits, I think you're ignoring that many of them will by the time they may need to claim some benefits have been here (paying into the system) for many years, decades in some cases and are often now married (often enough to British citizens) with children settled in UK schools. But I guess they should have thought about that in advance and just stayed away (in your opinion).

As the statistics I've posted previously clearly show, immigrants/EU migrants are significantly less likely to claim benefits than British citizens, so you're basing all your ideas on something that isn't actually currently a problem (despite what newspapers like the Wail would like you to believe).

Quite happy with what I have said, benefits should only be paid to UK citizens, in response to the comment below, I would also be happy to add a residency qualification, lets say 25 years, full benefits, less time in the UK places a limit on how long you can claim.

"Paying into the system" is a rubbish, people do not pay in what they can then claim, if you took a commercial insurance plan to cover such benefits it would cost a fortune.

The foundation of my views is that as a country, we are broke and we can no longer afford to fund such extravagant benefits, probably not even to our own citizens, so as a start we need to restrict what we are funding and the obvious start point would be foreign nationals.

[BrilloPad]

Quite happy with what I have said, benefits should only be paid to UK citizens, in response to the comment below, I would also be happy to add a residency qualification, lets say 25 years, full benefits, less time in the UK places a limit on how long you can claim.

"Paying into the system" is a rubbish, people do not pay in what they can then claim, if you took a commercial insurance plan to cover such benefits it would cost a fortune.

The foundation of my views is that as a country, we are broke and we can no longer afford to fund such extravagant benefits, probably not even to our own citizens, so as a start we need to restrict what we are funding and the obvious start point would be foreign nationals.

The reason we are broke is that the "rich" pay little or no tax and all the money the government has is paid to the bankers.

Most people want to work - but its hard to find jobs when most work has been offshored so the millionaires can make an extra few quid.

[Robinho]

Hang on a second Labour are responsible for certain things but the Banking crisis was not really one of them. All this QE stems from that. So if you want to start having a go at sectors which need to shape up I suggest you start with Banking.

Why not? El Gordo created the conditions for it to occur.

[Robinho]

Okay, so you two would want to set a precedent whereby you can take certain rights away from immigrants/EU migrants in advance on the basis that they consented to this by coming to the country in the first place. They are - in your opinion - not penalised, as they could have chosen not to come. Do you not see how this is setting a pretty clear precedent for removing ANY right a British resident may otherwise have? Are you explicitly stating that because they came willingly it's okay to treat them as secondary to the native-born population, despite subjecting them to the same duties (tax/NI) whilst in work?

If so - no words. Anti-immigration wouldn't be strong enough a word to describe what you actually are.

May also be worth remembering that by working (and paying tax/NI) in the UK, people generally lose access to many benefits in their home country (this is particularly the case for maternity benefits, such as SMP and Maternity Allowance). Also, whilst you may think that when out of work they could just "go home" to claim benefits, I think you're ignoring that many of them will by the time they may need to claim some benefits have been here (paying into the system) for many years, decades in some cases and are often now married (often enough to British citizens) with children settled in UK schools. But I guess they should have thought about that in advance and just stayed away (in your opinion).

As the statistics I've posted previously clearly show, immigrants/EU migrants are significantly less likely to claim benefits than British citizens, so you're basing all your ideas on something that isn't actually currently a problem (despite what newspapers like the Wail would like you to believe).

You are so ******* dumb it's untrue.

First of all, I have never condoned this, i have just pointed out that nobody is forcing them to come here, they do so on their own choice. They would either stay where they are, or come here and accept the drawbacks. If they still choose to come here, then they have accepted that coming here, in spite of the drawbacks is still a better option than staying put, thus we are not penalising them we are giving them an opportunity.

Secondly you need to get your idea of rights straight. You have a right to life, freedom and property. You don't have a right to other people's money, that is call theft and i don't know when that became a right, oh wait, the previous Labour government made that a right.

I don't believe in benefits, apart from in the case of Children (who shouldn't be made to pay for their parent's mistakes) and the genuinely disabled. That is the only justifiable use of rights imo. People actually need to save more money when they're in a job so when they're out of a job they can survive.

[ZARDOZ]

Why not? El Gordo created the conditions for it to occur.

wow powerful man, he brought down the US banking system too.

[Robinho]

wow powerful man, he brought down the US banking system too.

No, Alan Greenspan did that.

You have to understand, that the banking collapse was a symptom of the crisis, and not the cause.