Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Immigration
On today's Jeremy Vine Show, David Cameron said immigration has been good for Britain. Can anyone tell me in what way(s) this is true?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vernonk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There is a story 'trope' whereby the youngsters in some remote village are contemplating a move to the big city and escape the hardships of rural life. I've seen one foreign language film like this where the setting was somewhere in Africa but the city of interest was that country's capital.
These days, they have wider horizons (blame TV), so they know that European cities pay well and aren't riddled with disease, violent crime or corrupt officials.
These days, they have wider horizons (blame TV), so they know that European cities pay well and aren't riddled with disease, violent crime or corrupt officials.
http://
/// David Cameron vows to get tough on freeloading foreigners ///
February 26, 2013
/// David Cameron vows to get tough on freeloading foreigners ///
February 26, 2013
Controlled immigration where the immigrants integrate is very good for any country, uncontrolled immigration especially where integration does not take place is a disaster.
Mr Blair and his cohorts introduced uncontrolled immigration and on top of that actively encouraged immigrants not to integrate (The great failed multicultural experiment). Cameron has failed to stem the flow, partially because of the Lib Dems, partially because he is weak on Europe and partially through arrogance of what the public want and perceive.
The problem with uncontrolled immigration is that the infrastructure cannot cope; schools, Roads, Hospitals, Police, housing the list goes on and thats before you get on to importing criminals and paying out benefits to people that have not paid a penny and want to murder you.
So no Mr Cameron, immigration over the past 15 years has not been good for Britain.
Mr Blair and his cohorts introduced uncontrolled immigration and on top of that actively encouraged immigrants not to integrate (The great failed multicultural experiment). Cameron has failed to stem the flow, partially because of the Lib Dems, partially because he is weak on Europe and partially through arrogance of what the public want and perceive.
The problem with uncontrolled immigration is that the infrastructure cannot cope; schools, Roads, Hospitals, Police, housing the list goes on and thats before you get on to importing criminals and paying out benefits to people that have not paid a penny and want to murder you.
So no Mr Cameron, immigration over the past 15 years has not been good for Britain.
The reason the country needs vast swathes of foreigners to undertake vital work is twofold:
1. Successive governments have done nothing to "encourage" people who are fit and able but refuse to do so, to go to work instead of sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle and the racing on TV.
2. Successive governments have presided over the decline in the State education system (which educates about 93% of children) such that, after eleven (soon to be thirteen) years of compulsory education many of them are unfit to undertake all but the most menial of tasks (which they "will not" do because the pay is too low).
Had these two matters been properly addressed we would not need to import labour to pick vegetables and nurse sick people.
The country has huge problems providing sufficient housing, education, health, welfare and transport facilities. All of these problems are the result of over population. Meanwhile we have around two million people unemployed. The government's solution to the problems? Ship in more people - thus making them even worse. You could not make it up.
As has been said, uncontrolled immigration of people who will not integrate has been a disaster. Immigration in general is only seen as a success because it provides the labour which, for the two reasons above, should not be necessary.
1. Successive governments have done nothing to "encourage" people who are fit and able but refuse to do so, to go to work instead of sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle and the racing on TV.
2. Successive governments have presided over the decline in the State education system (which educates about 93% of children) such that, after eleven (soon to be thirteen) years of compulsory education many of them are unfit to undertake all but the most menial of tasks (which they "will not" do because the pay is too low).
Had these two matters been properly addressed we would not need to import labour to pick vegetables and nurse sick people.
The country has huge problems providing sufficient housing, education, health, welfare and transport facilities. All of these problems are the result of over population. Meanwhile we have around two million people unemployed. The government's solution to the problems? Ship in more people - thus making them even worse. You could not make it up.
As has been said, uncontrolled immigration of people who will not integrate has been a disaster. Immigration in general is only seen as a success because it provides the labour which, for the two reasons above, should not be necessary.
@NewJudge
"2. Successive governments have presided over the decline in the State education system (which educates about 93% of children) such that, after eleven (soon to be thirteen) years of compulsory education many of them are unfit to undertake all but the most menial of tasks (which they "will not" do because the pay is too low). "
Errm, so all that guff about 50% of school leavers now progressing to University, was that yet another Blair lie, was it a policy intention or was it a news story about this goal being achieved for the first time?
"2. Successive governments have presided over the decline in the State education system (which educates about 93% of children) such that, after eleven (soon to be thirteen) years of compulsory education many of them are unfit to undertake all but the most menial of tasks (which they "will not" do because the pay is too low). "
Errm, so all that guff about 50% of school leavers now progressing to University, was that yet another Blair lie, was it a policy intention or was it a news story about this goal being achieved for the first time?
Well said and completely to the point New Judge. On a continent immigration might be ok if everyone is in employment, but on an island, with limited land space and not everyone in employment who should be working, immigration is a disaster IMO. It's the future we need to be looking at, not so much the here and now!
Universities used to be a place where the intellectually gifted could benefit from further education. When it is degraded into a right of passage in order to claim a high percentage of folk were Uni level it doesn't do a lot for an improved workforce.
t takes a group off of the unemployed register for a while by spending money keeping them in education, and it means there isn't then enough in the public kitty to give grants to the gifted; so all have loans that only those who are actually trying to use the time wisely to get a valued qualification and thus a well paid job, have to pay back. The rest are on a freebie.
t takes a group off of the unemployed register for a while by spending money keeping them in education, and it means there isn't then enough in the public kitty to give grants to the gifted; so all have loans that only those who are actually trying to use the time wisely to get a valued qualification and thus a well paid job, have to pay back. The rest are on a freebie.
Yes it was a load of baloney and a foolish policy, Hypo.
The plain fact is that at the time it was promoted no more than about 10% (a conservative estimate) of jobs in the UK required education to degree level. This is probably still the case though many employers now insist on a degree because 'A' Levels have been devalued considerably. This means that of the 50% of people going to University, four out of five of them will end up doing a job which could previously have been accomplished by people with a couple of good 'A' Levels or even a few good 'O' levels (yes I do remember them). They will have been misled into believing that their degree in Media Studies will open up a world of privileged opportunity to them when in fact half the people in their class at school will be in the same boat. Young people are being misled and, unsurprisingly, they become disillusioned having spent three years at Uni, accumulating hefty debts, to find the only openings for them are stacking shelves at Tescos or frying burgers at McDonalds.
The plain fact is that at the time it was promoted no more than about 10% (a conservative estimate) of jobs in the UK required education to degree level. This is probably still the case though many employers now insist on a degree because 'A' Levels have been devalued considerably. This means that of the 50% of people going to University, four out of five of them will end up doing a job which could previously have been accomplished by people with a couple of good 'A' Levels or even a few good 'O' levels (yes I do remember them). They will have been misled into believing that their degree in Media Studies will open up a world of privileged opportunity to them when in fact half the people in their class at school will be in the same boat. Young people are being misled and, unsurprisingly, they become disillusioned having spent three years at Uni, accumulating hefty debts, to find the only openings for them are stacking shelves at Tescos or frying burgers at McDonalds.
