UKIP second in Eastleigh...anyone from Eastleigh care to comment?

(215 Posts)
SequinsOfEvents Fri 01-Mar-13 04:04:40

Bit tongue in cheek but wowsers! 11,000 votes! Crikey!

I am living abroad at the moment and am pleased to be! Can't come home with current political situation....how depressing

SequinsOfEvents Fri 01-Mar-13 04:09:14

Just noticed another thread on the Eastleigh by-election lower down, confused possibly should have posted there...I'll join in on that one

claig Fri 01-Mar-13 06:58:04

Sequins, please stop reading the Guardian, it's not good for you.

UKIP aren't a racist party. They are a protest party and they are likely to do very well in the May council elections.

'Can't come home with current political situation....how depressing'

What is depressing about voters who placed Labour 4th in the worst economic crisis since the 1930s? The voters of Eastleigh are ordinary people who don't want Labour and who voted UKIP as a protest against Tweedledee and Tweedledum (New Labour).

claig Fri 01-Mar-13 06:59:41

It shows that the voters of Eastleigh aren't stupid.

claig Fri 01-Mar-13 07:06:43

It is not good news for Cameron. The Tory voters in Eastleigh who defected to UKIP are sending a message that the Tories can't take their votes for granted. They need to start appealing to the people. I think the message will be much louder in the May local elections - maybe not up North, but definitely down South.

JakeBullet Fri 01-Mar-13 07:10:13

Frankly I think it shows that people don't know who in the hell to vote for. I think Cameron is going to get his arse kicked in the local elections come May but Labour will do badly too as they are not a credible opposition. I am more appalled that so many voted LibDem who are nothing but puppets now and sold all their policies down the river to get a chance if being in Government....except they are not really.

fridayfreedom Fri 01-Mar-13 07:12:57

LibDem have actually been quite good as in local govt which is why people voted for them, very little to do with National politics

claig Fri 01-Mar-13 07:15:13

Agree, Jake. It would have been a far better message for UKIP to win their first seat. People are fed up with all the puppets and they want change.
Farage was just on radio and said that a poll showed that 25% of UKIP's vote in Eastleigh was from voters who had not voted in last few elections i.e. they are reengaging teh disaffected and bringing in new voters and young voters. It is a sign that democracy is alive and well and that people are fed up of the puppets and their yah-boo games.

JakeBullet Fri 01-Mar-13 07:34:20

I accept that the LibDems might eell be very good locally. ....and I also think people vote differently in local elections than they might if it was going to influence a Government. ...as in who will govern parliament.

Agree with claig....people are fed up with yah boo politics.

claig Fri 01-Mar-13 07:41:12

The problem is our democracy does not give us proportional representation because teh yah-booers won't give us real PR. They pretend that voters at election time vote how they really feel, whereas by-elections are not their true wishes. But at general election time, people who don't want New Labour are often forced to vote Tory just to keep New Labour out, but that doesn't mean that they really agree with the Tories, just that they disagree with New Labour.

One day, if we are lucky, we may get a real PR system that reflects the real wishes of the people, which is what democracy is all about. That is why protest votes are good for democracy, because they highlight the hypocrisy of the yah-booers who claim that they reflect the people's wishes.

nagynolonger Fri 01-Mar-13 07:43:09

I always imagined UKIP voters to be the babyboomers who after a couple of drinks down the golf/cricket/rugby/football club could solve all the nations ills.

But I have been talking to my teenagers who will all vote in 2015 and at the moment UKIP seems the best option to them. I have always been a labour voter and DH a wavering tory.

I am a bit surprised by my DS views. They are a product of the times and area they grew up in and people are pissed off. They are not racist and their friends from asian backgrounds have similar views apparently.

Poorish middle England if anyone cares. Young people seem to hate the Condems......Tuition fees and EMA mainly. Kids who got EMA around here used it for bus fares not driving lessons.

Meglet Fri 01-Mar-13 07:51:24

It doesn't make Eastleigh look good does it.

Mind you, I wouldn't put it past people to do the same stupid thing if we had an election in my town.

Abra1d Fri 01-Mar-13 07:54:58

Is my Indian friend racist for considering voting UKIP?

claig Fri 01-Mar-13 08:07:20

There have been some puppets on the radio this morning saying that the UKIP vote was an anti-politics vote. That is how they view the democratic will of the people who turned out at polling stations to make their voice heard.

It is not anti-politics, it is anti-puppet.

tiggytape Fri 01-Mar-13 08:54:10

Any party that offers an alternative is often popular in byelections when the ruling party is disliked (and most ruling parties are disliked halfway between general elections so expect to do badly in byelections).
Some of it will be protest voting pure and simple - a big two fingers waved at the LibDems in coalition with the Tories but also a reflection on Labour's inability so far to present itself as a strong / credible opposition party.

UKIP have also managed to improve their image considerably in recent months - immigration is now a mainstream political issue which all parties talk about and promise to curb. It isn't seen as a racist or extreme issue anymore - especially since the attention placed on the foster couple whose children were taken, the crisis in Europe deepening by the day and the fact that both Labour and the Tories now speak out openly about restricting immigration / setting targets to lower net migration etc.

The focus has shifted - immigration is now an economic not a cultural issue and as such it has become acceptable to outwardly oppose it in a way that wasn't possible before. As a result of this byelection outcome, Miliband has already announced he will devote a party political broadcast to immigration next Wednesday ahead of a speech by the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper.

niceguy2 Fri 01-Mar-13 09:17:01

UKIP is not a racist party. It is however anti-immigration. But that doesn't make them racist.

I'm from an ethnic minority and I agree with quite a few of their policies. Where we differ is I think leaving the EU would be a long term disaster for the UK.

Anyway, the UKIP vote has really thrown a big spanner in the works mainly for the Tories.

UKIP voters seem to be disaffected Tory voters so they are drawing votes away from the Tories. Those who hate the Tories will probably think this is a good thing except UKIP seem to be a more right wing version of the Tories so I can't see that being particularly good. It will force the Tories to be even more anti-Europe and even more right wing to try to win back their core voters.

For Labour it is also v. interesting that they've been beaten into fourth place. OK Eastleigh isn't a Labour stronghold but given the austerity over the last few years, the debacle of student loans and the fact that mid-term govt's tend to get punished. Well you'd think Labour would have done better than fourth place. It seems that when push comes to shove voters don't think Labour have anything to offer them and would rather vote for the incumbents or UKIP.

It would seem to me that the only way for all the parties to proceed now is to cool towards Europe. UKIP is pretty much a two policy party. Immigration is bad. Europe is bad.

Personally I would argue that uncontrolled immigration is bad and that on Europe, the good outweighs the bad.

HelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 01-Mar-13 09:39:37

Morning. We're going to edit out the "you all look like total racist idiots now" bit out of this thread title.

We welcome discussion about UKIP and its anti-immigration policies but it would be unfair - and potentially libellous - to label the entire party, and everyone who has voted for them, as a racist.

tiggytape Fri 01-Mar-13 09:46:13

niceguy - I agree. The Eastleigh result actually saw a small swing away from Labour (less than 1%). They weren't expected to do anything but lose in Eastleigh but should be able to make some gains in the face of opposing one of the most disliked governments for years.

I agree with pretty much all your other points except that UKIP attracts disaffeted Tories - obviously it appeals to natural Tories who don't think Cameron goes far enough but it also attracts people who blame Europe, or at least immigration from Europe, for many of the financial hardships of the last few years and they aren't all Tories by any means.

In fact UKIP secured net swings of 19.34 per cent from the Lib Dems, 19.16 per cent from the Tories and 12.2 per cent from Labour. Lib Dems defintiely defected too and, whereas the LibDem party sees itself as a stongly pro Europe party, this isn't the facet of it that attracted voters in the past or will make them loyal in the future. People generally vote LibDem on other issues (eg student tuition fees, good local services etc) and didn't care one way or another about the Euro issue which has only recently become such a hot potato. UKIP also seemed to attract many former non voters too.

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Mar-13 09:51:01

There is nothing racist about voting UKIP.

We live not that far from Eastleigh and the UKIP vote is gaining ground here, and what they are saying resonates with people.

A lot of Tory voters are worried about another possible Coalition, which would be a disaster.

scaevola Fri 01-Mar-13 09:52:32

I would have expected Labour to do better; it's a bad indicator on their ability to present a credible alternative agenda.

RaisinBoys Fri 01-Mar-13 09:53:15

A party represented by Neil Hamilton is not a credible alternative to anything.

It's a byelection - it means just a smidge more than nothing.

Labour victory in 2015. In the meantime: Dave Cameron out & new leader in; Nick Clegg out & new leader in. Economy fails to grow & more people lose their jobs. Cameron & Osborne continue to waste precious time defending their banker mates bonuses whilst regular people get no (or below inflation) pay rise.

Are the people of Eastleigh racist? Only they know.

Callofthefishwife Fri 01-Mar-13 09:54:41

Am not an Eastleigh resident but am intrigued to know what the Beer,Baccy and crumpet party policies were??

They came 7th with 23 votes beating amongst others the Elvis loves pets party!

Naranji Fri 01-Mar-13 10:13:12

noone knows who to vote for. UKIP are the only party that have a very simple message that people can grasp (whether they agree or not is another matter). Labour have come out of this the absolute worst IMO. To not be able to gain ground from this awful coalition government just shows how in trouble they are. Mainly down to a terrible leader IMO.

claig Fri 01-Mar-13 10:14:23

'Labour victory in 2015'

I used to think that because the Coalition is not doing a very good job, but I no longer think Labour will win. This Eastleigh result shows that many ordinary people do still not see them as a viable alternative even in these terrible economic times. But what really convinced me that Labour will not win is when I saw Jon Cruddas, their policy chief, on Newsnight recently.

He is a well-intentioned guy and Labour have some good people who say some good things, but when I saw his strategy, I knew that it was set up to fail. He said something like all of teh following: that "food banks are here to stay" and we need to find ways to work with them etc. He said he favours the Big Society, just that the Tories aren't doing it right. He saw putting public money into community organisations such as gyms as a good way of finding employment for people rather than DWP offices, because the community knew more about where jobs and work was than the staff in DWP offices.

I thought it was something out of Monty Python, but it was Labour strategy and their policy chief.

Naranji Fri 01-Mar-13 10:20:45

i agree. He sounded like someone living in cloud cuckoo land. Labour are so unbelievably weak and they've lost my vote because they no longer have any intellectual big hitters and spend their entire time bleating on about how bad the coalition are. Also as a rural dweller I cant STAND Ed Miliband and his ridiculous london centric policies.

claig Fri 01-Mar-13 10:21:50

Cruddas had a worker with him in a cafe, and the worker said that taxes were too high. It seemed that Cruddas didn't want to hear that, because that is what the Coalition and their voters believe. Instead he started on about the "living wage", which he and the worker knows will never be adopted by private industry without legislation. It will probably only be in the state sector and workers in the private sector will have to pay for it.

Labour's thinking is trapped in their box, they can't break from their dogma and that is why the public won't see them as the answer.

claig Fri 01-Mar-13 10:24:19

'i agree. He sounded like someone living in cloud cuckoo land'

Naranji, it is very sad because there are millions of Labour voters who are desperate to kick the Coalition out, but when I saw that, I knew that they don't stand a chance of kicking the Coalition out even though it is not doing very well at all.

Naranji Fri 01-Mar-13 10:26:59

I run my own manufacturing business and the living wage would force us to close. Shame as I have always been a Labour voter traditionally. They seem to have absolutely no clue.

tiggytape Fri 01-Mar-13 10:29:57

I agree claig - I think it will be another split result but even more fractured than last time so goodness knows what ruling coalition will be cobbled together. It could even go to a complete hung result with another general election just a few months later like in 1974.

I just don't see how Labour will win it. They just don't offer a strong opposition voice. In our house we now laugh everytime 'Labour demand a public inquiry' since this is their stock answer to almost everything.... 'David Cameron wore no tie today and Labour demanded an immediate public inquiry!' If you type 'Labour demands public inquiry' into Google, you get over 2million results.
They need their own message of alternative policies distinct from the other parties - criticising and opposing without offerign real solutions that appeal to voters is no good.

LittleTyga Fri 01-Mar-13 10:31:47

naranji I find your statement fascinating and I have a question I hope you don't mind?

But how can you justify employing someone and not pay them a living wage? Since when did an employer think it was OK to have someone work for them whom they cannot pay a decent salary to? Be interested in your input.

naranji Fri 01-Mar-13 10:41:23

The Living Wage (7.45ph for those out of london) is a fixed amount approx £1.50 an hour above Minimum Wage.

We pay just above minimum wage (7 ph - look at your local temp agency - most part time jobs are lower than this) to a proportion of unskilled manual factory employees. They've worked for us for years and have good working conditions, perks and long holidays. Our business relies heavily on government contracts, all of which have been decimated over the last 2 years due to cutbacks. We are just about surviving. If we have to add a huge proportion more to our wage bill it will finish us and everyone will lose their jobs.

naranji Fri 01-Mar-13 10:42:07

at the moment the Living Wage is a voluntary concept not actually a statuatory right like the Minimum Wage

tiggytape Fri 01-Mar-13 10:46:23

I don't know naranji's case but know from a self employed point of view that people don't always pay themselves a living wage. Some people want to supplement a household income and / or work from home but the costs of operating a business / paying suppliers / paying for services / paying taxes doesn't leave enough profit to then pay themselves an hourly rate that would be a living wage if they relied solely on that income.

If they charge their customers more money to make up this shortfall and pay a living wage, their customers would go elsewhere since they can get the same product or service cheaper from other companies. I guess the same is true on a larger scale as well?

Some might say this proves their business is unviable but margins are very tight, much competition os from abroad where there is no regulation on salary at all and many people take the view that it is better to work from home, have flexibility and earn some money than not work at all and earn none.

niceguy2 Fri 01-Mar-13 10:50:43

The minimum wage was brought in using practically the same argument as being used for the living wage. If we did implement the 'living wage', in a few years time we'll be talking about a 'real living wage'.

You cannot raise wages by the stroke of a legislative pen unless the economy can support it. Right now our economy is hardly strong and it would be a disaster.

I think most people see the profits which the likes of Tesco and Amazon make and think all companies are raking it in. The reality is most employees are employed by small/medium businesses, most of which are scraping by. Even many large companies are zombies and only continue trading because banks are too afraid to call in the debts.

LittleTyga Fri 01-Mar-13 10:52:05

I work in recruitment and the salaries paid when I started in the 90's are the same now - £7 ph was the average basic hourly rate then too - that's 20 years ago.

It's wrong that the Government are squeezing companies like yours to the bone in order to carry out your job - And this is Capitalism yes? This is how it's meant to work - keep the workforce under control by paying them just enough to survive?

It stinks doesn't it? I'm not blaming you - I see how the system is controlling you too. It's now wonder no-one votes what is the point?

Anyway, I too am a slave to Capitalism and must get off to work now!

olgaga Fri 01-Mar-13 11:02:05

Can I just point out that Labour won 10% of the votes, which is the same result for them as in 2010.

It's never been a Labour seat, and is never likely to be. Everyone knows that.

Meanwhile, the Tories and Lib Dems BOTH lost 14% of their votes to UKIP.

As Farage quipped - "If only the Tories hadn't split our vote..." grin

tiggytape Fri 01-Mar-13 11:09:27

olgaga - Labour ddn't expect to win but generally when a Government is unpopular, the main opposition party should be gaining some support. And they aren't. In fact they lost 12.2% to UKIP so not that far behind the other two parties.
Whatever the final breakdown of figures, Labour definitely did not gain as you'd expect to see at this stage even in a totally non-Labour area. Basically if they can't make some headway when the government is hated and people are prepared to vote for just about anyone else, how on earth can they win in 2015?

RedToothBrush Fri 01-Mar-13 11:24:34

Can I just point out that there is a frequent link between people would want PR and and those who complain about the Coalition and its policies because no one voted for them or they didn't vote for them.

Hello Liberal Democrats who feel betrayed by the abandoning of student tuition fees for example.

As for Labour. Seats in this country where the Lib Dems have ever been a contender either go down the lines of Lib Dem v Conservative with Labour not even on the same race track OR Lib Dem v Labour with the Conservatives not on the same race track. So much so that this was part of strategic policy in the last election with literature tailored to the area to encourage voters to 'Keep Out' the main opposition stating that the weaker party 'have no chance' in more or less that exact phrasing. They calculated that people were more likely to vote tactically for the Lib Dems than would vote positively for the Lib Dems during a General Election where it was so split and much fear about who would get in.

It would be something they had researched so, this decision just shows how much voting is motivated it about 'keeping out' and how difficult it is to massively change voting patterns in an area. Hence if you have complete disillusionment with the entire system like their currently is, then it doesn't surprise me that UKIP have benefitted rather than any of the other parties. Its about 'keeping out' rather than necessarily a positive vote for them and their policies.

olgaga Fri 01-Mar-13 11:24:36

Do you know Eastleigh at all? There is no Labour infrastructure there. Hardly any membership let alone activists. Labour has only ever got out its core vote there.

There are 19 wards in the borough of Eastleigh represented by 44 councillors.
40 are Lib Dems, 4 are Tory.

Affluent areas like Eastleigh are barely affected by national issues. The "protest vote" here was about gay marriage and Eastern European migrants - and UKIP was the obvious choice.

The only surprise was that the Lib Dems lost quite so many votes to them.

lancaster Fri 01-Mar-13 11:41:52

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

lancaster Fri 01-Mar-13 11:42:34

sorry that didn't make sense, I meant UKIP voting Asian friends.

BMW6 Fri 01-Mar-13 11:53:40

I am also shocked at Labour coming in 4th. Where did all the protest votes against the "evil" Tories go? hmm

niceguy2 Fri 01-Mar-13 11:55:01

Then you need to get out more.

It's perfectly possible to be anti immigration without being racist.

It's not racist to say you oppose further mass immigration because the country cannot support it. There's not enough jobs already, we're spending too much already on benefits. The country cannot cope with another huge influx of immigrants. Of course at the moment there's a lot of concern over huge numbers of Romanian's coming.

It would be racist to say that we don't want lots of Romanian's because they're all gypsy criminals. But it's not racist to say that we don't want lots of them because we can barely cope with the numbers living here now.

One is racism, the other is a legitimate concern.

It does everyone a disservice to brand everyone who is concerned about immigration as racist.

kimorama Fri 01-Mar-13 11:58:51

Yes, a force to be feared by other parties if they could poll at 7 per cent in a general election. Not likely to win seats themselves

olgaga Fri 01-Mar-13 12:11:42

lancaster it's an interesting point. I lived on an inner London estate for 15 years, and during that time I got to know traditional white working class families who were dismayed by the number of Irish and Caribbean families on the estate who gradually replaced them. They in turn became dismayed by the number of Nigerians and Somalians who arrived, and replaced them. They became dismayed at the number of Bangladeshis who arrived. No doubt by now the Bangladeshis are getting concerned about the prospect of Romanian gypsies...

Many areas, especially where there are high levels of social or affordable housing, "churn" all the time. It seems that people of all races tend to feel concerned about the area they live changing significantly, so I'm not sure that racism is necessarily the right way to describe that resistance to change, or the decision so many people make to move out to a "better" area if they can afford to.

If your entire High Street changes out of all recognition, you no longer share a language with your neighbours and the local amenities don't provide what you want, you're bound to be peeved.

I think to dismiss concern about immigration as racist is too simplistic.

tiggytape Fri 01-Mar-13 12:12:53

I have never met someone "anti immigration" who wasn't also racist.

lancaster - Every mainstream party in England now proposes to tackle and curb immigration. Are you seriously suggesting there is no non-racist party left to vote for?
Immigration is an economic issue not a cultural one to the vast majority of people who support tighter controls. Maybe differs where you live. I am in London and know plenty of second and third generation immigrants who are anti immigration - none of whom are racist. They aren't worried about race, they are worried about jobs, money, taxes, welfare, resources, housing, school places.....

SequinsOfEvents Fri 01-Mar-13 12:36:03

I was being light hearted but happy to have title amends for libel reasons....possibly slightly OTT but MNHQ know best

I can appreciate that one should never say racist lightheartedly...so I take that back.

I don't mind political debate at all and have had my eyes opened to some interesting views on here regarding UKIP and protest voting vs their commonly regarded but presumably (according to most on here) stereotype political leanings / undercurrent / tone etc

Will read back over again in a bit to understand more of the thoughts and opinion

I've never posted in Politics before despite an interest and lurker status. I will come back with more to add and less to learn another time.

Thanks for replies

One last point though....nice jump to stereotype yourself claif (on phone so can't check name - think thats right or in ballpark) right at the start though - Guardian reader? How would you know?! Can't really and with a straight face accuse me of sweeping statements (to paraphrase) if you start your (later very informed) comments with that little simplified gem smile

lainiekazan Fri 01-Mar-13 12:39:04

I live near Eastleigh. People didn't care for the Con candidate. I've met a few new UKIP voters. Their candidate was impressive if you were minded to be swung in that direction.

Labour usually puts up a "paper candidate" in Eastleigh (ie one who does not actively canvass; just a name on the ballot sheet). It was arrogant of the party to put up a "celebrity" candidate - John O'Farrell. it just shows how Leftie-London centric the party is if they think anyone in Eastleigh knows or cares who he is.

Tansie Fri 01-Mar-13 12:48:55

" Affluent areas like Eastleigh are barely affected by national issues".

I disagree. Whilst the more challenging areas of Eastleigh are hardly ghettoes, there still exists rather a lot of 'don't haves' there. It is very white, working (or unemployed) class, with a significant proportion of eastern Europeans. The main street, of an average weekday afternoon, will have a large numbers of young mums pushing prams, speaking English or what is possibly Polish (not so good on my eastern European languages!), and unemployed youth hanging around outside the pub door; the shops are largely pound shops and charity shops. Yes, obviously Chandlers Ford in Eastleigh borough is well to do and affluent and contains schools like Thornden which produces the highest academic results for any Hampshire comp but that school is very MC, and 'selects' by house price (and some of its catchment isn't in Eastleigh borough). I am not condemning this; my DSs are there!

But the rank and file of downtown Eastleigh are the sort of people who believe rightly or wrongly they witness their children's education being 'compromised' by the teachers spending more time with the DC who arrive without being able to speak English; they see their own teenage, pregnant DD unable to get a council flat because 'incomers' have been given them first; they wait far longer for their hospital appointments because there is an 'un-provided for' bulge of people they see as having been 'non-contributory' in the queue ahead of them (by this I refer to the 500,000 extra people in the UK as revealed by the last census that Labour didn't know were here!). Labour have had the grace to acknowledge they had no idea of how angry the 'average person' was at their free-for-all immigration policies. They also read the DM.

This is why UKIP have done so well.

And yes, my DSs attend this well-to-do school along with 'foreign' DC, largely Indian sub-continetal, Chinese, northern European, and I can say, hand on heart, that their parents whom I know feel the same way: they arrived in the UK as well educated contributors, so no, this UKIP thing isn't a racist thing, it is, as already stated, an economic thing.

People are angry that when it comes to the millions of Romanians who will flood the British welfare system next year, some well-educated, well settled, higher earning contributory Romanian will be wheeled out to accuse us all of racism, as if we can't tell the difference between someone like them (who could just as well have been from Burkina Faso as Romania) who had to apply for a work visa, (only granted after a British employer jumped through dozens of hoops to prove he couldn't find a suitable domestic applicant), then had to show sufficient funding to support themselves, then had 'no access to the public purse' for the first 5 years of their residency- disregarding that yes, 10 strong incoming EU families may have a couple of (minimum) wage earners among them (hooray, say the employers federations, we need care home workers and spud diggers!) but their tax contribution will be negligible against the cost of the state housing, the education, the health care etc etc the rest of the family will take from the public purse.

Our country is simply not wealthy enough to support its own needy any more, it does not want thousands if not millions of somebody else's. Only UKIP's withdrawal from the EU can prevent this.

I am not a likely UKIP voter- I don't want grammar schools back, for instance and yes, I believe we need ties with Europe, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is absolutely no way to prevent a tide of people we cannot support flooding the country next year other than to shut the door. I am not anti-immigration; DH is an immigrant (Australian), but was subject to the terms and conditions as outlined for the settled Romanian above. Australia wouldn't look at you twice unless you could tick those boxes!

Abitwobblynow Fri 01-Mar-13 12:49:51

Really happy that MNtowers is taking a stance against people accusing others who they don't agree with, of being racist.

Well said Niceguy2. Born and bred in Africa here, and looking hard at UKIP.

SequinsOfEvents Fri 01-Mar-13 12:59:33

I've read a bit more now and some interesting debate about racism vs valid (?) immigration fears especially in second and third generation immigrants.

What I don't understand are the previous immigrants now passing comment on the next wave. You can't seriously oppose other people coming to the same country you did looking for opportunities to better themselves just as you did 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

I say this as a child of two Irish immigrants. I would be particularly cross if I ever heard my own father discuss immigration. I do get cross when my aunt discusses it - she honestly cant see the hypocrisy!

Perhaps people feel validated saying that the country can't cope with anymore and enough has been done but I still really dislike hearing friends discuss it too. I am not sure it is one you can discuss rationally without sounding a little bit racist possibly entitled and, again possibly, unwilling to help those less fortunate than yourself.

I take the point that is being made about mass immigration maybe not helping the UK anymore but it stills jars with me and even slightly left leaning people are allowed opinions.

I will probably stop short calling all UKIP voters and immigration worriers racist from now on though! Definitely on MN anyway! smile

SequinsOfEvents Fri 01-Mar-13 13:10:13

Alright Wobbly - well done MNHQ for amending my title - I said I take it back but you just had to add your comment did you? Jeez....

I think I'll back away graciously as, apparently, you can't even take things on board, say you'll read more before coming back and be perfectly gracious without it still being said the some are glad MNHQ came down hard on my wording!

I will refrain from posting for a bit I think and will continue my own personal feelings regarding UKIP voters as exactly that, personal!

It's ok to think somebody who disagrees with you on a fairly divisive subject is racist in your own head! I'll go back there to do some thinking - and avoid you lot for a while!

tilder Fri 01-Mar-13 13:12:21

Ukip may not be ostensibly racist, bu it is on the fringes of politics, and onthe right. Imho political extremes tend to do well at times of recession, or when people are dissatisfied with more main stream politics.

Just because a party has received a superficial makeover to give a veneer of the mainstream, it doesn't necessarily follow that this will go in very far.

I'm sorry, but in my mind ukip sits somewhere between the Tories and parties with an even more right wing agenda. I am not comfortable with that and it does worry me that this makes policies that lie further to the right of the Tory party acceptable to more people.

SequinsOfEvents Fri 01-Mar-13 13:13:38

And PS I am glad to be away from the UK still. I suspect you are glad not to have me too if the scornful tone directed at any UKIP opposers is anything to go by

Right - I really am backing away now. I do apologise to anyone this thread has irritated.

olgaga Fri 01-Mar-13 13:14:51

Tansie I agree there are plenty of "don't haves" in Eastleigh itself, but none whatsoever elsewhere in the constituency - Bishopstoke, Hedge End, West End, Fair Oak etc. You won't find many of them anywhere near the Eastleigh's "main street" with its over-abundance of charity shops and pawnbrokers and that grumpy little market. You're more likely to find them in Winchester or West Quay!

Yes Thornden is indeed fantastic - as you would expect of a state school without a single council estate within its catchment area. Toynbee? Not so great, less academic, but still better than many state schools.

What I meant by "largely unaffected by national issues" I had more in mind issues such as welfare reform, NHS, education, transport etc.

I certainly agree with your analysis of why UKIP did well. Growing numbers of East Europeans in Southampton and Eastleigh, pressure on local schools and services whether real or perceived, an excellent UKIP candidate, very poor UKIP-lite Tory, joke Labour candidate. Plus the fact that there is generally high satisfaction with the Lib Dem administration of the borough.

I also agree with your comment Tansie.

I think a constituency like Eastleigh was ripe for a UKIP protest vote - my only surprise was that Farage didn't stand himself. I think he'd have been a shoo-in.

No doubt he has his eye on another similar southern constituency to take from the Tories, which will no doubt give him greater satisfaction!

vesela Fri 01-Mar-13 13:15:40

Are we going to retreat into a world where you're not allowed to leave your country? Or maybe no one should be allowed to leave their own parish - that would make things nice and simple.

Tansie Fri 01-Mar-13 13:25:42

Sequin you say "You can't seriously oppose other people coming to the same country you did looking for opportunities to better themselves just as you did 10, 20 or 30 years ago."- well, yes you can, and are maybe more likely to do so if you arrived with nothing, were given practically nothing yet worked your way 'up' to a position of relative affluence, well-settled, proper tax paying but contributing, not taking; then see 'incomers' arrive who threaten to 'take away', to push you further down a queue, because yes, I believe you'd have every reason to feel 'entitled'. You entered into a social contact: I'll work hard, I'll pay my way, I'll contribute to this country financially and socially- the trade off being, when and if my time of need comes, there's be some pay out for me.

I will wonder how much 'it will jar' with you when and if you ever found yourself trying to find another primary school for your DC because the local one was suddenly full of unplanned-for incomers, or (and whispers here)- your DC was one of only 2 non-'Eastern European language' speakers in her class... and found herself socially excluded as a result (true documented story- an extreme example, yes, I grant you) BUT the point I am making is that it is the poorer people in more deprived areas who do find themselves 'exposed' by uncontrolled mass-immigration such as a lot of people in Eastleigh and governments ignore their voice at their peril.

As I stated, DH is an immigrant, arriving on an ancestry visa (though he could also have applied on a spousal visa). This cost us £650. Once here, he had 'no recourse to public funds' for 5 years and only emergency access to the NHS (though that was never, ever checked or challenged- it should have been). So if he were unemployed- no dole, no housing, no JSA. In fact, after 3 months in a temp job, he did become unemployed, I had to go back to work (with a 2 year old), to pay the rent for the few weeks before he got the permanent managerial job he's still in! And yes, I'm still working PT.

Since then, 10 years odd ago, DH has done nothing but contribute to the country. He finds our open-door immigration policies completely nuts.

I hold dual citizenship with Australia. To gain this, I had to be on their occupational shortage register (HCP, so yes), have no dependents and be under I think it was 35, and stay in my job!

Yes, we may always need immigrant care workers, spud pickers etc (though questions of our own unemployed potential workforce could be asked!) but I am not sure we are, economically, in a position any more to financial provide for their 'collateral'. This way social unrest lies.

Tansie Fri 01-Mar-13 13:28:03

And how can it be 'racist' when the person of whom I speak, for instance, my DH, is a bloody foreigner grin but of exactly the same race and ethnicity as me?! His grandad came from Shropshire.

Tansie Fri 01-Mar-13 13:32:20

Q: (*vesela*) "Are we going to retreat into a world where you're not allowed to leave your country? Or maybe no one should be allowed to leave their own parish - that would make things nice and simple."

No, not at all. I think you'll be welcome to leave your village, parish or country- just like now!- just that you won't be allowed to freeload on the villagers/parishioners/countrymen in your new location. Which means if you don't have the wherewithal, either in terms of cash or skills, you'll be 'on the street' in that new country. Which you'll need to consider before emigrating there.

What's hard about that concept to understand?

tiggytape Fri 01-Mar-13 13:35:04

What I don't understand are the previous immigrants now passing comment on the next wave. You can't seriously oppose other people coming to the same country you did looking for opportunities to better themselves just as you did 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

There were periods in our history when we actively encouraged people to come to Britain. We needed skilled workers during the Industrial Revolution (a lot of immigrants were great textiles workers), we needed to rebuild after the years and years of War during the 20th century. We have also traditionally welcomed those who were persecuted elsewhere and are known for this stance. The difference now is that not everybody wishing to come has a profitable skill or is fleeing persecution and the country they are coming to is already bursting at the seams - a shortage of 90,000 school places in London alone is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of resources streched to breaking point.

Maybe it is selfish to pull up the drawbridge and say that we don't currently have the resources to support those already here (whatever their race) so wish to discourage more coming (whatever their race) but it is something a lot of other countries have always done and to them, it is not racism, it is economic necessity.

olgaga Fri 01-Mar-13 13:41:49

Sequins You can't seriously oppose other people coming to the same country you did looking for opportunities to better themselves just as you did 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

Well people can - and do - for exactly the same reasons as those whose families go back longer.

It's one of the reasons why the debate about immigration has moved on - it's not just ideological, it's more about practical issues such as unemployment, the cost of welfare, pressure on schools and limited social housing. Once immigration only affected the poorest in their council estates. Maybe no-one else here is old enough to remember "Hard to Let" council properties!

The shortage of council/social or any affordable housing, the introduction of buy-to-let and the Local Housing Allowance has allowed "waves of immigration" to be experienced much more widely throughout communities instead of just being concentrated in sink estates.

The reason UKIP will benefit from this is simply because it isn't possible to restrict immigration from EU countries as it is with non-EU countries. It wasn't really an issue while most EU countries were affluent, but as soon as the EU began to widen its borders to take in less affluent countries, unrestricted immigration was always going to become an issue.

I suppose if you no longer live here, you might have missed this shift in the immigration debate, and the negative effect on opinion about the EU.

I think that's the main reason people see UKIP as a valid protest vote.

I'd just like to make it clear, having said all that, that I would never vote for them!

olgaga Fri 01-Mar-13 13:44:54

Doh, I meant to say in my post at 12:48:55 that I also agreed with lanie.

SequinsOfEvents Fri 01-Mar-13 13:50:50

All points noted. I still wouldn't vote for UKIP and haven't missed the shift in immigration debate (I did know these points but, as per real life, I never quite get my points across eloquently enough! Or write long enough posts!)

Anyway - I haven't been affected by immigration (bar positively I guess) so maybe my opinions are based on that somewhat ideological image as you suggest.

Thanks all - I will now argue around immigration into the UK differently

vesela Fri 01-Mar-13 13:53:03

Tansie - I agree that benefits shopping is not a good thing, although there's relatively little of it. But also, it's not benefits tourism on which UKIP focuses when it talks about immigration. It adopts a simple "we don't want them" rhetoric (as have some on this thread). And it whinges about things like foreigners going to UK schools, as if that were some sort of heinous crime.

When you talk about freeloading, are you referring to people sending their children to school?

I'm British, we live in another EU country and from this year my daughter's going to be in the state school system here. Are we doing something wrong? Should I have stayed in my own country?

claig Fri 01-Mar-13 13:56:33

Sequins, you started a good thread and of course we want you back in the UK. We don't take offence at your views, and your views are shared by many people. Many of us don't think UKIP are racist, just in favour of more controls on immigration.

SequinsOfEvents Fri 01-Mar-13 14:06:52

Hi Claig

I've popped the Guardian down to respond grin (I honestly am joking...it's not PA!) Thank-you for your reply.

I started a much more polarising thread than I realised - mostly because (as my husband always tells me) I speak too quickly and in tones too explosive and "at one end" to really trigger debate - just conflict and violently opposing opinions!

I will take a lot on board from here (about my posting style and topics for one!) but I thank you for reminding me that my (possibly ideologic) opinion is shared (I was starting to be totally swayed and thinking that living away has left me so out of touch with mainstream UK people) but also that UKIP supporters (or at least voters?) aren't all racist!

As I said, thanks all and I am sure we will come back one day and pay our way to support ourselves and others less fortunate than us. We will do so gladly.

claig Fri 01-Mar-13 14:11:31

We will welcome you back! Also there are many more lefties on MN than Tories or UKIPers and lots of them will agree with you and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Keep posting on here, because it has been quiet recently, and this has created some debate.

claig Fri 01-Mar-13 14:12:36

'I've popped the Guardian down to respond '

Shredding it would be better!

SequinsOfEvents Fri 01-Mar-13 14:17:28

I know! The leftie thing I mean....being brutally (and shamefully) honest, I thought the thread was a doozie for a load of leftie ranting! Was super surprised to be so slated from the get-go! Serves me right for being a d*ck!

And basically being told off / corrected for saying racist too - the shame

Anyway - glad to have livened up the politics board albeit totally inadvertently!

I will continue lurking but not sure I will post again. Back to the behaviour and food and sleep boards for me!

SequinsOfEvents Fri 01-Mar-13 14:18:30

Oh and I'm totes a Guardian reader as I'm sure you knew! #honestposterwhosayssorrywhenadiv

FillyPutty Fri 01-Mar-13 14:31:12

"We welcome discussion about UKIP and its anti-immigration policies but it would be unfair - and potentially libellous - to label the entire party, and everyone who has voted for them, as a racist."

Ahem.

Chris Bryant (Labour, shadow immigration, yesterday)

"Net migration is falling but public concern is rising.

These figures demonstrate that the government is not focusing on the kind of immigration that worries people the most."

Fact is, ALL the parties have anti-immigration policies.

Obviously UKIP are a very good place for protest votes, as, unlike the Lib Dems, they are nowhere near government.

AmberLeaf Fri 01-Mar-13 14:31:13

Is my Indian friend racist for considering voting UKIP?

Maybe a bit self hating and xenophobic.

UKIP as a party may not be racist as such, but thats because they have to conceal it somewhat or else they are just another extension of the BNP and they want to be taken seriously, but a massive chunk of their voters are racist, to deny that is a bit silly really. UKIP voters tend to be of the 'Im alright jack' variety too.

Sequins I agree with you about some immigrants of the past who are now being very anti immigration, massively hypocritical and a bit stupid really.

FillyPutty Fri 01-Mar-13 14:32:28

Nothing hypocritical about that Amberleaf, to immigrate in MY family, we went through very considerable hardship. Why should we be in favour of unlimited Poles/Romanians/etc. being able to just get on a plane?

AmberLeaf Fri 01-Mar-13 14:38:08

Filly but plenty didn't go through considerable hardship to get here, they often faced it once they were here though and that is the part that rankles, Ive heard people my age [pushing 40] who were born here but whos parents werent, some of the things they say are shameful, blaming poles for crime, calling them dirty etc etc, much like their parents faced from english people when they first came over here. They don't see the irony.

tiggytape Fri 01-Mar-13 14:58:59

Racism is racism though - calling someone 'dirty' based on their race is racism pure and simple. There are plenty of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants who are not racist and do not behave this way even though in economic terms they may think the UK cannot cope with a high net migration figure.

It is possible to be racist no matter where you originate from, where you were born or where your family was born. Equally, it is possible support tighter immigration controls and not be racist at all if you are motivated by concerns over housing / schools / welfare / health services etc i.e. purely monetary concerns not cultural concerns. ALL major political parties support tighter immigration controls yet nobody would say every Tory, Labour and LibDem supporter is a default racist.

FillyPutty Fri 01-Mar-13 15:14:11

I don't know why you think people from another country wouldn't be racist. IME they are much more likely to be racist than people from this country.

There have been historically unparalleled rates of migration over the last decade, and it's not all racist for anyone, black or white, to complain about that, and frankly suggesting that black/brown/whatever people aren't allowed to complain about immigration seems rather racist of itself.

Tansie Fri 01-Mar-13 15:18:26

Q: vesela "I'm British, we live in another EU country and from this year my daughter's going to be in the state school system here. Are we doing something wrong? Should I have stayed in my own country?"

If you and/or your partner are working, if you are paying your taxes, if your sole reasons for being in that country wasn't to benefit from a better funded social system than the one you had in the UK, i.e if you're putting in at least as much as you're taking out, then, no, I am sure you are a welcome, contributory, involved person in your community.

Using the UK- or any education system/public health services etc whilst choosing to live on welfare in council paid for accommodation, having deliberately emigrated here with the sole and express intention of doing just that is freeloading. Earning a minimum wage, but still calculatingly importing your entire family to have the shortfall in provision filled by the state, is freeloading.

There is nothing sacrosanct about 'education' that makes using it without contributing anything worthy of special consideration.

Q: Sequin "I am sure we will come back one day and pay our way to support ourselves and others less fortunate than us". That's good- just don't go assuming any of your taxes you pay will still be available to 'support you' should you need them if they've already been spent on welfare etc for mass, unlimited immigration!

FWIW I don't consider UKIP racist at all. They are merely putting voice to concerns a lot of people are feeling. I personally don't care if you're white, black or rainbow striped; Christian, animist or 'of no faith'. Come on in- providing that you have the ability and desire to very quickly become an involved, committed, contributory member of society, benefitting from the Rights afforded you here but also being 'made' to accept your responsibilities.

Where I live (in a leafy end of Eastleigh!) of the 4 houses I can see from my front window, here, 3 are lived in by 'incomers' or immigrants, if you like. None of the people are WASPs. But every morning, a string of cars pull out containing the working adults of the family, off to their professional jobs, their children come out and join mine to walk up to the school bus together. They all own their houses, they all own their BMWs (they're better off than us! grin). No, we're not all popping into each other houses but we pass the time of day (which is one reason why I know they're concerned about Romania!), we lend lawn mowers.

I am not advocating this MC 'utopia' as 'the way to go' but it is an illustration of how we all get along just fine, regardless of race, colour or faith- why? Because we're all on the same page socially. They have 'bought into' the social contract (and possibly are far less likely to call on the public purse in times of need than I might be!- family pride, family pulling together to tide that person over etc) same as I have.

So this is not a racist issue, it is an issue of economy and straight forward 'What's fair'.

Final point: Who can blame a Romanian Roma from firing up the Trabant and setting off westwards, come the day??!

AmberLeaf Fri 01-Mar-13 15:24:37

Where did I say I thought people from another country wouldn't be racist?

I was talking about people born in this country of immigrant parents, who seem to have forgotten that their own parents faced the same kind of hostility.

I haven't suggested that black/brown/whatever people aren't allowed to complain about immigration.

But the notion that people only complain about immigration in times of austerity is bollocks. The whole thing of 'not enough jobs/education/housing to go around is a reason, but it isn't the only reason at all.

Adults born in this country of immigrant parents should know this more than anyone.

That is what I find stupid.

Some people are just racist and/or xenophobic.

niceguy2 Fri 01-Mar-13 15:44:31

What I don't understand are the previous immigrants now passing comment on the next wave. You can't seriously oppose other people coming to the same country you did looking for opportunities to better themselves just as you did 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

Of course it's not the immigrant's fault. Virtually in all cases they come because they want to work hard and build a nice life for themselves and their families. Noone can blame them for that.

In many countries there are little opportunities, REAL poverty, repression and little/no healthcare. The UK with it's tolerant multicultural society, large economy, decent healthcare, police and comprehensive welfare system is like comparing night & day.

But the UK is struggling to cope with the sheer numbers of immigrants. There are areas which we do need more immigrants. Skilled jobs for example such as IT consultants. We want to attract and keep those sorts. But we have plenty of people who can work in Costa Coffee. As others have mentioned we have a shortage of resources which will be made worse by uncontrolled migration.

Long term we do need immigration but it has to be targeted and controlled.

That doesn't make me racist nor does it make me a hypocrite because I was lucky enough to live here in the past. It just makes me a person who is putting the needs of the UK above those from another country. Just like any other UK citizen should.

SequinsOfEvents Fri 01-Mar-13 15:44:55

Tansie, I've never used my tax monies to support me before and never begrudged them supporting others...I guess your point that I might mind when I get told (repeatedly by the media and other sources) that they're going to immigrants who possibly moved for a better social safety net or the age-old "benefit scrounger" (those so-reviled and publicised generations of families on benefits) and therefore there's nothing left for me. So to clear it up, I'm happy enough for them to support a welfare state however (large) it looks. It's better than the alternative as far as I can see. I am simplifying here but am getting a little peeved at everything I say, in as well meaning a fashion as I can, being taken as a stick to beat me and my views with! It's boring now. I get it - I'm idealistic but leave me be and I'll leave you in leafy Eastleigh.

This WHOLE thread boils down to two things for me - tightening immigration controls in the UK (in line with other countries if you like) and whether or not you appear to be racist when you say that.

And UKIP - whether or not you consider UKIP a party with a certain political slant that can now be hidden behind economic policy or a party with a valid point regardless of previous held views regarding said party. Each to their own on that I think.

Nobody will ever agree I guess so let's call it a day (please!)

I think everyone seems to agree that racism is bad so huzzah to that!

G'night all - it's late here

Smudging Fri 01-Mar-13 16:00:08

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

slug Fri 01-Mar-13 16:16:13

Interesting reaction from the Conservative candidate.

Would it be wrong of me to say I really like her coat?

Tansie Fri 01-Mar-13 16:24:40

Got no time for the woman because a) she's Tory candidate, and b) because of the ridiculously ill-advised things she said about her apparently G&T primary schooler oh, and c) because she reminds me of this woman! and maybe even Pauline Hanson of Australia - I can hardly blame her for not wanting to address that scrum!

slug Fri 01-Mar-13 16:34:27

On a more serious note, I do think UKIP are a bit racist. I will cheerfully admit that I have only anecdotal data for that.

The thing is, like tansie's DH, I'm an immigrant (though I don't come from the country with the White Australia policy or Pauline Hanson ). I was canvassed fairly hard by UKIP in the last election. It's amazing what crap they come out with when they think you are a middle class English person. I'm white you see, and I can put on a fairly convincing Sarf London accent when it suits me. It's so much fun to watch them backpedal frantically when I point out, actually, I'm an immigrant. I usually get some spluttered guff about being the right sort of immigrant. Given that I don't tell them what I do for a job, I can only assume this is because of my perceived middle class exterior.

SequinsOfEvents Fri 01-Mar-13 17:32:59

Oh BeJeezus! We are in DISCUSSIONS OF THE DAY! Have we been there long? Might explain the traffic.....

I really should be in bed and can't believe I'm so excited about this especially as I'm not convinced I come out of this very well.....not sure this is very me and now I'm in the DISCUSSIONS OF THE DAY!!!

Anyway.......and breathe........I tend to agree with you slug re: UKIP but my anecdotal stuff is all second hand so I didn't mention any of it before. Plus I did start to think that perhaps, as all the other posters were talking so differently to my thoughts re: UKIP, I must be outdated and their approach must really have changed (more mainstream/acceptable to the voter, less openly rightwing). I'm not sure I really felt they could change that much - as referred to above....we will never all agree on that I guess.

However, and this is the really important thing, I disagree re Maria's coat! wink

Talkinpeace Fri 01-Mar-13 17:58:45

PLEASE do not link Thornden School to the Eastleigh by-election.
It is in the Chandlers Ford Constituency.
Here is the map of the Eastleigh Constituency
www.allthatsleft.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Eastleigh-map.png

Labour lost their votes when Pirelli and the Railway closed.
Conservative will always do well in Hamble and the villages
but the Lib Dem council have made "localism" work better than many (much to the annoyance of P-P-Pickles)
so were always going to win.
UKIP is just a protest vote that will melt away at a general election.

PS the immigrants in Eastleigh are all white : the local paper is printed in Polish.

DontmindifIdo Fri 01-Mar-13 18:30:29

I think this thread has been interesting, along with the whole discourse over the last 12 months or so on immigration, because i remember the local elections in (I think) 2004 having an argument with another friend who's also Guardian reading middle class lefty who agreed that Labour should refuse to discuss immigration. It was the party line that to even discuss it was to be pandering to the racists. That view has held strong within the Labour party until very, very recently, that you aren't allowed to question at all immigration or you were treated like you were saying you want to send all the brown and black people home...

It's very hard for a lot of people on the left to see why this is such an issue because they've spent over a decade refusing to engage in the debate, so now, late to the discussions, they find the argument is framed by racists who were prepared to discuss it.

And it is an issue, for any major change (like that massive influxes of new immigrants in the 00's) there's always some downsides. Even if you believe overall the has been a benefit to the country, the refusal to acknowledge the downsides made (and still makes) the Labour party look like they don't understand or care about things that are making the lives of the British working class worse, and these are their key voters. (It's ok that Tories don't look like they understand the lives of poor people, no one expects them to)

This was a seat with a disgraced LibDem MP, the LibDems having had their first go at government and having let down a lot of their consitutents. The Tories are also in power, not polling well and having made tough choices that have also hurt a lot of people. It was always the case that another party could take a lot of the votes from the LibDems or Tories in a seat like this in a time like this, but it is very very telling that Labour couldn't get those votes (even with a high profile celeb candidate), but that it was UKIP that benefitted from the anti-government protest vote.

That might not translate to a large UKIP presence after the next election, but it might well translate to a long, long time in the wilderness for the Labour party.

Unfortunatlyanxious Fri 01-Mar-13 18:32:27

Both my optician, who is Indian and my lovely next door neighbour who is Jamaican have complained about immigration levels.

olgaga Fri 01-Mar-13 18:41:44

Talkin there are children from outside the catchment who do get into Thornden when places come up. Some of them live in Eastleigh. I'm sure it's not official, but funnily enough they tend to be the brighter ones, and those who've gone to the nearby independent preps.

Talkinpeace Fri 01-Mar-13 19:17:46

olgaga
I know - the gerrymandering between Thornden and Toynbee is one of the wonders of the modern age (mine are at MB : I know of what I speak)

BUT
we have a lot of (southern) Poles here in southern Hampshire because we have welcomed them as hard working additions to the area.

The fact that the kids of Ford workers, BR workers and Stevedores seem to think that they like their parents will be paid £46k per year for unskilled jobs
is something for Mr Gove's department.

They can vote UKIP till their fat lazy arses melt into the sofa, but the fact is there ARE jobs there, just not glamorous or well paid ones : no shit sherlock, work harder at school then.

Tansie Fri 01-Mar-13 19:23:01

Of 280 places @ Thornden, about 18 got in who weren't in catchment or sibling in catchment! Perhaps your 'when places come up' should be emphasised. How many a year might that be?! Funnily enough, to the best of my knowledge, barring maybe Otterboune that supplies 30 DC a year, the entire rest of catchment is in Eastleigh... Chandlers Ford is in Eastleigh though the sliver more or less to the west of the railway line is in the neighbouring Borough for electoral purposes. Your map, talkinpeace, shows Chandlers Ford is in Eastleigh! And yes, there is council housing in catchment! You sound like you're privileged to different information to the rest of us, Olga!

The Daily Echo in Eastleigh, tbf, isn't Polish.

Xenia Fri 01-Mar-13 19:31:14

UKIP do promote a single flat tax rate and merger of tax and national insurance which is a good plan. However there is no much point in splitting the Tory vote. Mind you whoever won last time knew they were unlikely to get in again for a generation as the country was in such a mess. It was a poisoned chalice to win then.

Longfufu Fri 01-Mar-13 19:32:22

UKIP are not racist, they will be getting my vote.

Talkinpeace Fri 01-Mar-13 19:35:35

Tansie
do you not get the Polish edition?
in Shirley they sell equal numbers Polish and English

PS the Thornden catchment is most certainly in the Constituency of Steve Brine
as are bits of Toynbee
but I utterly agree with you about the "places come up"
I'm sure SH make a lot more of their money getting kids into KES than they do THornden

Smudging Fri 01-Mar-13 19:59:33

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Talkinpeace Fri 01-Mar-13 20:10:49

Smudging
indeed, but they were Northern Poles - nothing they hate more than the Southern Poles of Shirley !!!
Not joking - dealt with the lot on CIS building West Quay

niceguy2 Fri 01-Mar-13 20:13:01

Mind you whoever won last time knew they were unlikely to get in again for a generation as the country was in such a mess. It was a poisoned chalice to win then.

That was what Mervyn King predicted. But thankfully (or not depending on your political beliefs) it seems thanks to the total inadequacy of Labour his prediction may not come true.

Smudging Fri 01-Mar-13 20:17:27

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tansie Fri 01-Mar-13 20:26:06

I know that 25 years ago I went out with an English born Polish bloke, a PhD student whose parents had fled the war, and was therefore 100% 'English' iykwim, who I met again a month ago thru work (!) who, after much other conversation, told me how 'things' had become trickier for him and his family since the arrival of the 'new Poles' in terms of perception, benefit cheating etc!
So his family were those smudging speak of? As opposed to newer immigrants who, inevitably, came as our first 'new accession' arrivals, were firstly considered novelties and 'hard workers' (like early adopters of anything!) but whose perception among the local populace, with the arrival of their purely economic immigrant compatriots, has turned to Benefit Tourist.

merrymouse Fri 01-Mar-13 21:32:57

*Fact is, ALL the parties have anti-immigration policies.

Obviously UKIP are a very good place for protest votes, as, unlike the Lib Dems, they are nowhere near government.*

Agree, and also think none of the main parties are feeling very enthusiastic about Europe at the moment either.

Don't think the British really want Nigel Farage to sort it all out for them though.

olgaga Sat 02-Mar-13 00:17:13

Tansie, Chandlers Ford and Hiltingbury are not in the Parliamentary Constituency of Eastleigh. They are, however, in Eastleigh Borough. CF and Hiltingbury are in the Parliamentary Constituency of Winchester.

What I said was: there are children from outside the catchment who do get into Thornden when places come up. Some of them live in Eastleigh.

I meant Eastleigh (town) which is not in the Thornden catchment, as opposed to parts of Eastleigh (Borough) which are in the catchment.

Others get into Thornden because they have managed to get into feeder schools whether or not they live in the Thornden catchment or even the feeder school catchment, because a place has become vacant and there is no-one within catchment on the waiting list. Which happens. Otterbourne is of course one of the Thornden feeder schools.

None of that is privileged information!

Where is the council estate in the Thornden catchment then?

suburbophobe Sat 02-Mar-13 00:36:50

I find them creepy. UKIP.

England getting more insular.

Too many people put too much belief into the crap that the Daily Mail put out every day. So biased!!

It's like Germany in the 30's all over again. "Yes, let's find a scapegoat and I am perfect".

<shudder>

out2lunch Sat 02-Mar-13 00:39:27

oooh interesting thread
i am a second generation half polish voter from eastleigh.i was quite surprised as thought there would be more of a swing away from lib dems due to chris huhne's court case/lying and the coalition with the conservatives but, having said that the lib dems do work hard in the area keeping in touch all year round.their candidate was the only local resident - my son was in the same class at school as his daughter.

my father voted for ukip as a protest pure and simple - he wasn't really aware of their policies.i voted for labour as a hope for change - i couldn't vote lib dem again due to the coalition or the cons and i felt ukip was a vote for another right wing party.

Abitwobblynow Sat 02-Mar-13 08:48:39

Sequins:

"What I don't understand are the previous immigrants now passing comment on the next wave. You can't seriously oppose other people coming to the same country you did looking for opportunities to better themselves just as you did 10, 20 or 30 years ago."

that is three if not four self-regarding non-sequiters wrapped in one sentence! WHY are lefties so pleased with their own Good Intentions?!

1. you assume immigration to be an inherent good. Who told you immigration is an inherent good and why have you accepted that? What empirical and theoretical grounds do you have, for assuming that immigration is an inherent good?

What about, for instance, an alternative: if the Thatcher government in the 80s had bitten on the demographic bullet (I went to a lecture by Gavyn Davies [then the head of Goldman Sachs] where they KNEW then the population was ageing), and announced: from henceforth, all professionally qualified married couples who produce four or more children will go tax free - or something. Now, that kicks a couple of sacred cows already, the lefties would have screamed and shrieked about cruelty evil and elitism -
but what would it have done to address the current problem????

(by the way - what is the current dilemma Sequins? Can you define it?].

2. assumption number two: you are assuming that the UK has infinite capacity in terms of infrastructure, resources, space and welfare. It doesn't. It really, really doesn't.
ALL of the political parties KNOW that the welfare state which includes the NHS is not sustainable. They are just too scared to tell you - because the level of debate in this country is such that you just vote for the other people who lie to you and assure you they won't touch it and the NHS.

3. Conflating the past with the present: historically, there was a huge shortage of labour post-war. So this country NEEDED bus conductors, construction workers, railway workers and other economic group C bodies - but they don't need them now. What IS needed are skilled professionals and entepreneurs. So why didn't we grow our own and raise the birth rate?

4. 'oh lordy, here come the fat slags!' [apparently Viz magazine is the most piercing commentary on the underclass, it is just not noticed because it is in cartoon form] - why are unproductive Sharon and Tracy sitting in ghettos where the government has put them on council estates, whilst immigrants are imported to pick and pack our produce? Why can't people work and be topped up with benefits?

5. New Labour incompetent deluded clowns catastrophically reversed the Conservative laws on marriage from the Asian sub-continent, thereby 'opening the pipeline from Pakistan'. It isn't gearing-up-to-be-a-world-power India that are taking advantage of this - it is the rapidly failing state Pakistan. Exactly what level of education do these people have? Illiterate and unable to speak English? Why do we want the people of a failing state, and why do we owe them anything?

6. You need to wake up. It is my African acquaintances' (especially the low paid and unemployed) dearest wish to get to Britain. Do you understand that they are educated to Grade 3 or 4 like the Pakistani cousins and believe in witchcraft? (Adam in the Thames) Do you understand that African children are traded like commodities because of the levels of child benefits they get? (Victoria Climbie).

7 Which population group of UK is now producing the most babies? What is the eventual impact of this?

I am waiting for the usual screaming and shrieking and accusations of right-wing evil because I have told a few blunt truths. But please think these things through before spouting well-meaning platitudes! Every choice - even caring sharing well-meaning ones - have consequences!

I don't WANT my politicians to be handsome with lovely smiles and speak in soothing bromides (yes, that is you, Tony, and you Nick and you Call-me-Dave). I want them to do what is right, no matter how difficult, for the future long-term well being of this country. The last person to speak difficult truths and insist on implementing them, was Margaret Thatcher.

We get who we vote for! Honestly, how many people have considered the above and the disastrous ideologies that result in all these unintended consequences? Why has Europe not addressed it's declining birth rate, and the economic stresses that have brought it about (which they are now 'solving' with immigration)? Europe generously and caringly 'aids' Palestine so that Palestinians have 10 or more children per family but ignore their own declining birth rate - It's stupid!

Don't people think about history, the lessons of history and long term outcomes?

No, they don't. I am no longer sure democracy is a good idea - most people aren't clever enough to have the vote. The older I get, the more Plato's oligarchy makes sense, really.

zamantha Sat 02-Mar-13 09:01:27

Dear helenmumsnet - back down thread,

I understand debate needs to happen but the voice that says I feel really uncomfortable with the tone of Farage is a strong voice - I'm a white, middle class from working class roots leftie. My parents - daily mail readers are screaming about immigration - us lefties feel angry but are not screaming like Daily mail - our anger will come out on threads like this.

Immigration is an issue but Farage does come across as a schmoozy nationalist - I'm uncomfortable with nationalism.

vesela Sat 02-Mar-13 09:42:07

There are 300,000 Germans living in the UK. How come no one ever lays into them? And those 123,000 French people?
www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/26/europe-population-who-lives-where

claig Sat 02-Mar-13 09:59:12

Isn't that obvious? Because very few of them are on benefits and very few of them are competing for low paid jobs, which is the same for English people in Germany and France.

claig Sat 02-Mar-13 10:07:17

'There are 300,000 Germans living in the UK. How come no one ever lays into them? And those 123,000 French people?'

And that just goes to show that British people are not anti foreigners, but the concern about immigration is essentially economic. The people from Eastern Europe are white, so it is not about race, but about the economic impact.

vesela Sat 02-Mar-13 10:10:05

claig - have you got the data relating to numbers of Germans on benefits and numbers of Poles on benefits?

It may not be about race, but it's about trying to feel superior to Polish people.

claig Sat 02-Mar-13 10:15:29

Of course it is not about feeling superior to Polish people. That is a misunderstanding of the reasons why UKIP increased their vote so substantially in Eastleigh.

If lots of Germans were on benefits or competing for low paid jobs, the newspapers and UKIP would be telling us.

TheFallenNinja Sat 02-Mar-13 10:50:24

I don't think that Eastleigh is a litmus test for much really, the bigger issue is turnout.

This mid term blip is precisely that.

SequinsOfEvents Sat 02-Mar-13 11:06:20

Wobbly - I think I made my feelings very clear quite some time ago.....I am over it. Please stop directing everything at me now. I told you, I started a much more inflammatory thread than I really meant to but I am HONESTLY OVER IT! Please stop referring to my earlier posts...they've been commented on, move on

Your post is long very informed and informative and I have never pretended to know everything there is to know about immigration. I have already said I would certainly consider immigration in a different way (less idealistically?) from this thread but the point of this was about UKIP really I'd say and what a strong showing in Eastleigh might indicate. Are they or aren't they accepted as seen as mainstream?

Anyway - I shall leave you to it - argue with/against somebody else now please

Still in Discussions of the Day - so fame awaits you Wobbly

zamantha Sat 02-Mar-13 14:03:49

Let us hope UKIP are not mainstream - please no!

His anti-European stance is so inward looking. I do hope tories don't feel they have got to please these ukip protestor votes.

For me immigration is great, had a whole host of fab cleaners and builders/decorators from Eastern Europe have been some of best skilled workforce for my dad's business. Problem is if you are a labourer or a waitress, you may feel less pleased as the pressure on minimum/lower wages is to spiral downwards for Brits. Fewer jobs more workforce - market dictates.

Why should those at top enjoy upward mobility while others see a decrease in living standards? I can see how this troubles Daily mail, worlking class people.

I , however, don't want to discriminate and feel for our poorer Europeans but it is tough on certain sections of society that we have had a rapid influx of immigrants.

Working within Europe, for all to benefit, is the answer - perhaps govts do have to do tough deals now.

BIWI Sat 02-Mar-13 14:18:33

I just wonder, all of those people who talk about immigration being such a big issue, if any of them have any idea how many people we are actually talking about?

Would anyone care to guess at how many people, in the year to June 2012, immigrated to Britain, and how many emigrated from Britain? And therefore what the net figure is?

Go on - without Googling ...

Fillyjonk75 Sat 02-Mar-13 15:26:51

No, they aren't a force to be reckoned with in terms of winning seats. They are enough of a force to thoroughly piss off the Tories and maybe let Labour in in marginal seats, thereby scoring an own goal by letting the party into power whose agenda is most different from theirs, thereby pissing off UKIP and their supporters. So it's a win win.

Don't forget lots of countries not very far from these shores have a significant far right presence. At least most of UKIP are only closet racists, they aren't the Front National.

alemci Sat 02-Mar-13 15:47:34

Yes wobbly the people trafficking is a real concern. I went to an event about is and a police officer came to talk to people about it. The people are seen as a commodity and even if they go back to their country they are still in so much danger. This could get worse in 2013 if there is more movement from eastern Europe as alot of the trafficked people are coming in from there.

also alot of chocolate products apart from fair trade are being produced by child slaves on the ivory coast who get paid nothing.

It was quite shocking.

you talk alot of sense and none of the mainstream parties are listening to the genuine concerns of their constituents.

SequinsOfEvents Sat 02-Mar-13 16:30:52

I think I feel very similarly to you zamantha but not sure I have explained myself very well! You did a better job!

No idea BIWI - have you googled in preparation?!?!? Tell me, go on, tell me! grin

BIWI Sat 02-Mar-13 16:49:07

grin

I saw some figures reported recently, and this thread reminded me of them.

This is the bit that stuck in my mind:

^"Overall, the level of immigration to Britain fell from 589,000 to 515,000 over the year to June 2012, while emigration from Britain remained broadly stable with a rise of only 10,000 to 352,000 going to live abroad for more than 12 months.

The difference between the level of immigration at 515,000 and emigration at 352,000 gives the net migration figure of 163,000."^

Article here

Talkinpeace Sat 02-Mar-13 16:57:37

BIWI
Speaking as a first generation economic migrant ......
the UK government has absolutely no idea how many foreigners live in the UK because the ones (like me) with "Indefinite Leave to Remain" have never been counted.
The first public guess, about 5 years ago was 250,000 - until the US Embassy pointed out that it had more than that number of registered voters resident here!!
THe current estimate is around the 2,000,000 mark
BUT
because most of us with ILR are in work, we are invisible to UKIP
(who actually asked me once if I thought immigrants should be sent home) grin

BIWI Sat 02-Mar-13 17:13:12

Outrageous - off with your head!

indahouse Sat 02-Mar-13 23:12:23

Why on Earth does everyone assume Poles come here for the benefits? Because of the misleading DM headlines rambling about Child Benefit and quoting figures rather than ratios no doubt. The hard facts is that very few Eastern Europeans claim benefits. They are working their elbows off to keep this country running.

No one has any idea how to wean hundreds of thousands of Brits off the benefits without causing outrage and DM being full of stories about starving children. No unskilled job will be more attractive than security of life time benefits. Topping up wages with tax credits isn't helping much.

If there were no migrants here, there would probably be hardly any British products in stores and everybody would have to cook their own meals. Doesn't sound bad, but also without all the extra people producing and buying stuff economy would be in far, far deeper shit than is now.

The huge problem is there's no debate based on facts, but it's all about resentments and anecdotal evidence from DM. There's so much nonsense on this thread..

I would like to live in a world where people are blind to race and nationality and just see human beings. I'm overjoyed that my own country is becoming more attractive to migrants and streets are full of people talking in different languages. There were no foreigners here for decades because people blamed all their woes on them and voted NSDAP.

claig Sun 03-Mar-13 09:06:49

'Why on Earth does everyone assume Poles come here for the benefits?'

Agree indahouse, Poles come here to work not for benefits and I think very few will be on benefits.

HillBilly76 Sun 03-Mar-13 10:40:38

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

vesela Sun 03-Mar-13 10:41:20

Hear hear, indahouse.

There are something like 38,000 non-British EU citizens claiming JSA, of which 13,000 are from the accession countries. Of course that leaves out things like housing benefit and child benefit, but why shouldn't other EU citizens claim those, if British people can?

vesela Sun 03-Mar-13 10:42:36

HillBilly76 - why is having streets full of people speaking only English a good thing?

Britain has always been full of people speaking different languages.

vesela Sun 03-Mar-13 11:55:42

Not that it was particularly peaceful - there were periodic anti-foreigner riots. In Canterbury and Sandwich a third of the population in the late 16th century was foreign, in London about a tenth. After the Huguenots came, they alone made up about 5% of London's population, and there were complaints that there wasn't enough English spoken in the streets etc. Then there were the 300,000 Jewish immigrants who came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

indahouse Sun 03-Mar-13 12:04:20

There were hardly any benefits in the past, HillBilly76, that's why people worked, but there's no going back to that.

Taking into account WTC and CTC the minimum wage for people with children is around £26000 if I remember correctly. How much do you want it to be - £30000, £40000? And what would be the point in studying and working hard if you could get £40000 in a supermarket? If employers were to rise wages, the prices would have to rise accordingly. Would you be happy to pay double for your weekly grocery shop to have everyone working in supermarkets and their suppliers on £15 an hour?

Hearing different languages on the street is great because it's what humanity and Christianity is all about - everyone is equal and the more people mix and match, the less division there will be between races, religions, nations. Hopefully we'll be less likely to repeat the horrible things that happened in the past (and are happening now to some extent), because some groups of people thought less of other groups of people.

vesela Sun 03-Mar-13 12:13:41

and before anyone starts banging on about preserving British culture - there's a fair amount of it about, but if traditional culture is going down the pan it's not the fault of immigrants. Focus on preserving it in your own families.

BIWI Sun 03-Mar-13 12:16:34

There really is no such thing as a British culture that is defined by one nationality.

We have always had immigration (and emigration, actually)

Talkinpeace Sun 03-Mar-13 14:48:28

As an immigrant I find it hysterically funny that the British
who merrily invaded and took over much of the world
imposing their culture, language and rules
now object to a few people coming here for work

And why do companies hire Poles?
Because they work hard - they get few benefits so they either work or go hungry.
Companies I do accounts for switched to using Poles because their hourly rate was a tad higher (yes really) but the amount they got done in a shift was double the lazy arsed English people.

BIWI Sun 03-Mar-13 14:49:53

We also, Talkinpeace, never consider the fact that we think it our right to go anywhere in the world that we want - look at all the expats in Spain. Or all those who line up to go to Australia or New Zealand.

Thus making the Brits the immigrants.

Talkinpeace Sun 03-Mar-13 14:52:32

BIWI
My Brother and his family went to Spain at Half Term.
They got heckled at the airport by out of work Spaniards shouting "English Go Home"

BIWI Sun 03-Mar-13 14:53:27

grin
How very dare they. Do they not know that we have an Empire. Oh wait ...

MisForMumNotMaid Sun 03-Mar-13 15:13:46

Many moons ago I lived near Eastleigh and went to Barton Peveril 6th Form, swam and went to holiday club at Fleming Park, oh the memories.

Something that doesn't ring true to me is this bit about Polish immigrants. Eastleigh and Southampton, from my understanding as a teenager, had a post WW2 influx of Polish people when the concentration camps were emptied because they were dispersed people. For many their families had become separated and their communities decimated by war. The war destroyed their homes and communities there wasn't a home to go back to. We're talking going on 70 years ago now aren't we?

I haven't been to Eastleigh for 15 years now though so it could have changed a fair bit since my day.

There was certainly a big Polish community centre with Polish food shop on the way to Southampton and a lot of Polish spoken in the area in the 80's.

vesela Sun 03-Mar-13 15:26:31

MisForMum - see the third comment at the end of this article for one guy's reminiscences...

alemci Sun 03-Mar-13 15:32:34

All well and good about the Polish people working hard etc and I don't dispute that but where does that leave the English/British people who do work hard and want jobs. Isn't that stereotyping the British people implying that they are lazy etc.

I take your point about the empire etc but that wasn't the fault of my generation and other European countries did the same.

Also Indahouse as long as in 50 years' time we are still in a position to be able to practice christianity. Are you sure everything who arrives is so tolerant as we are of this freedom

Abitwobblynow Sun 03-Mar-13 15:39:28

"I would like to live in a world where people are blind to race and nationality and just see human beings. I'm overjoyed that my own country is becoming more attractive to migrants and streets are full of people talking in different languages. "

It is this [I am a superior person because I Care So Much] wishful thinking which I was talking about. The West is sleepwalking to disaster and you don't even notice! The use of immigration to solve a declining birthrate and an ageing population is a terrible solution! The skating over of what kinds of immigrants are being let in and 'The Poles' as the usual safe substitute of discussion. I am not talking about The Poles. I am talking about the badly educated, completely different culture etc. immigrants that we have been so successfully persuaded we are going to use to 'change the world for ever'. No, it won't. It is ensuring your eventual cultural and economic destruction. It won't happen soon, but in 100 years...

'A destructive aspect of unconscious functioning is also postulated. Thoughtout the ages, humans have attempted to harness their instinctual levels of consciousness and civilisation. This process seems to have been bought at a price. While governments advance humanitarian principles and notions of civilised, rational interactions between races and nations, never before has humankind had such capacities for worldwide destruction and mass exploitation. What we see is that the more conscious and moral certain nations become, the more their aggressive and greedy needs become hidden from consciousness.... [A Basic Introduction to Psychoanalytic Thought ed J Watts].

What happens when the WRONG kind of person you are being oh so nice to, gets into a position of power, and has a weight of numbers that you can't do anything about? Tower Hamlets comes to mind.

You all might think that you have gotten rid of your aggressive and greedy impulses for ever and ever (because Labour votes are GOOD people, of course and Tories are Evil especially That Woman who is Super Evil] - but they haven't.

You kid yourselves at your peril.

vesela Sun 03-Mar-13 15:51:46

Oh look. "Influx of Polish children into UK schools 'has helped improve British pupils' grades.'"
article here.

"Prof McNally said this [the research results]] could be due to better education standards in countries like Poland, as well as the work ethic of their parents, who had left their homeland to seek employment in Britain.
She said: 'It may be the fact that immigrants from East European countries are better educated and more attached to the labour market than the native population.
'The children of such immigrants may be a welcome influence in the schools they attend.'

Going by the Czech educational system, at least, then the combination of parents who put a lot of emphasis on getting things right, together with the more creative approaches of UK schools, could well, I imagine, produce some good educational results.

MotherSouperior Sun 03-Mar-13 16:01:54

Interesting to see this thread in discussions of the day. I seem to remember that UKIP didn't exactly cover themselves in glory when they came on MN for a webchat at the last election. Didn't Farage make some awful remarks about keeping women in the home? And excused one of his party quoting the Third Reich by saying he was 'a bit of a character' hmm

I remember my jaw was on the ground when I was read it. It think it showed their true colours and I can't believe they've changed much since. And because they are the one party successfully managing to exploit Conservative Party divisions and public dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the main parties, they are getting all this attention. But they are a very unpleasant bunch. They've just tidied up their shop front.

vesela Sun 03-Mar-13 16:21:08

oh dear, I mentioned Poles when I should have been talking about those naughty people with a completely different culture.

Still, if you want to make sure that Sharia law doesn't become law in the UK then 1) keeping the Human Rights Act and 2) staying in the EU seem like good ways to go about it.

Talkinpeace Sun 03-Mar-13 16:35:55

The proponents of Sharia Law in some of the Muslim ghettoes around the UK are often British Born ....

Misformum
1950's poles were northern. 2000's poles are southern. the first batch are on record as voting UKIP cos they do not like the latter!

and yes, UKIP are arses who will fade away soon.

vesela Sun 03-Mar-13 16:47:14

I know, Talkinpeace - it (the popularity of Sharia law) seems to me to be a general cultural issue rather than one of immigration. A lot of it seems to be a reaction to high levels of public drunkenness etc., some of it coming from men who feel threatened by women, some from women who feel unsafe...

Xenia Sun 03-Mar-13 16:48:11

We need the right for women in as few clothes as they choose to wear to walk on any street even Muslim in the UK. Perhaps we are going to have to arrange bikini walks through Muslim areas and become like those awful fat ugly Irish men and their stupid marches in Northern Ireland who take themselves so seriously. There should be no no go areas, no areas with notices up saying you cannot buy alcohol etc. Mind you Scottish islands can be a bit like that too - no playing in playgrounds at the weekends. Plus ca change. www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIKCgRlwQUA

We are one of the most tolerant countries in the world and must fight hard to keep our free speech.

Most immigrants have benefited the UK. However those relying on benefits are the ones we don't want as indeed we don't want our own citizens on benefits either.

MisForMumNotMaid Sun 03-Mar-13 16:49:39

Are you talking aboutSouthern Poland in saying thats where the latest migrants are from?

I had the fortune in my teens to travel with a Southampton family to Southern Poland (almost as far South as you can get ) to stay with their relatives whose paths had sent them in a different direction. The father of the group I travelled with had been born in a concentration camp, I believe it was in Germany. His parents were definitely from Southern Poland though.

Talkinpeace Sun 03-Mar-13 16:54:15

Xenia
its not just Muslims who are deeply intolerant - parts of North London are ribboned off by the Hasidim each week ..... and some of them have been here for 300 years.

Actually, its interesting to have you on this thread because many of the benefit claimants among the immigrants are non working uneducated women and their children - after the men have wandered on to the next relationship -
and religious bigotry has stopped those women being able to work.

Many Pakistani Muslim women who arrived in the UK as child brides barely speak English - and their husbands like it that way ...

IMHO the answer to the vast majority of indigence is education (of the taxpayer funded variety) - which of course UKIP would merrily cut if they came anywhere near power

vesela Sun 03-Mar-13 16:54:44

(by "general cultural issue" I don't mean "an issue of Muslim culture").

Talkinpeace Sun 03-Mar-13 16:56:43

Mis
yup, the vast majority round here come from small pockets : when I was doing work papers for a batch, 15 came from the same village
AND
all of them saved every penny they earned and have now gone back to Poland rich men and set up businesses there

Poles from London comment that the ones round here all have the Southern (their equivalent of scouse) accent.

alemci Sun 03-Mar-13 17:02:27

I agree Vesela that the people being drunk isn't a good thing but it is their choice and don't want people telling them they cannot and it is a no go area for them.

Don't the men have to pay maintenance for their children if they are married to the mother. I agree they like the women to be powerless and be limited by not speaking English which is a real shame and limits their choices but I think more should be done to make the men cough up. Afterall they brought the women to the GB and should support them. Does need clamping down on.

vesela Sun 03-Mar-13 17:24:59

alemci - I agree (on reaction to drunkenness etc). I wasn't suggesting that it was a reasonable reaction. It's basically vigilantism.

Talkinpeace Sun 03-Mar-13 19:06:26

alemci
Don't the men have to pay maintenance for their children if they are married to the mother

Only if the mother goes through the CSA system,
is willing to have the court appearances to prove they are separated
realises that the CSA exists
knows where her husband is and what he calls himself
knows that she was actually married
the shame of the women and their lack on understanding (due to not speaking English) is shocking

bochead Sun 03-Mar-13 22:41:32

Oh stop it - the CSA can't get the funds from anyone not willing to pay maintenance for their children. That's when the mother is British born, & Uni educated, & the father has a fixed abode, straightforward job and isn't trying to avoid the authorities. The CSA is not fit for purpose and has't been for decades now.

A woman whose English is substandard, with not much information to hand about how to negotiate the system doesn't stand a chance of getting a penny via the CSA. (Assuming of course she has the funds to pay for the fees and phonecalls needed to apply to the CSA in the first place!)

Parents generally shouldn't be allowed to just abandon their children and with it any sense of financial obligation towards them but it happens in every community within Britain, not just specific ethnicities. There is not the will power to rectify this situation within any of the mostly male dominated political parties.

niceguy2 Sun 03-Mar-13 23:37:05

All well and good about the Polish people working hard etc and I don't dispute that but where does that leave the English/British people who do work hard and want jobs. Isn't that stereotyping the British people implying that they are lazy etc.

To a certain extent yes it is stereotyping but like with most stereotypes there is an element of truth there.

There are of course many British people who do work hard. But there are also a great many who lack the self discipline, mentality and ethics to keep down a job.

I'm sure that in Poland you will find some people who bimble along without much ambition, happy to do whatever.

But of course they are the very same people who can't be arsed to move to a foreign country either.

So what we're seeing is the most motivated coming over to the UK and understandably taking jobs from locals who are unable to show the same level of motivation.

feeltheforce Mon 04-Mar-13 10:42:38

I am not anti immigration if it is managed. There are loads of people who could bring so much to this country. But there are of course quite a few that come and don't. So it needs to be looked at.

I hate to say it but NF does have a point. Example, I've just lost my child benefit due to Dh earnings. A Polish guy I know has a wife from whom he is separated living in Portugal. She has never stepped foot in England. They have a child and you've guessed it.....she gets child benefit from our government. How is that right? and I guess that is the tip of the iceberg. I have got lots of Euro blood in me and nothing against the Poles or any others but you can only manage so much and surely people already residing in this country should come first.

vesela Mon 04-Mar-13 12:00:26

It's right because it's his child and he's working in the UK. Child benefit is paid to the dependent children of people working in the UK. What's wrong with that?

vesela Mon 04-Mar-13 12:06:01

I wouldn't expect to get UK child benefit, obviously, but then I'm not working in the UK. Instead I get to deduct my daughter from tax here (in the Czech Republic).

DolomitesDonkey Mon 04-Mar-13 12:49:06

It's interesting to me, as a realist with a "go-getting attitude" that both OP and zamantha who she commended live in a Left Wing Utopia where they believe that immigration should be welcomed - after all, Zamantha says "some of my best cleaners have been immigrants".

Crikey - champagne socialism at its finest - "All hail the minimum wage worker to do all those "icky" things - Little Jocasta doesn't have ANY migrant children in her class! wink so I say it's not a problem."

DolomitesDonkey Mon 04-Mar-13 12:53:38

Whilst I believe in open EU borders - I think perhaps we need to consider how far east (and south) we intend to go. With Turkey's admission in contention - who might be next? Syria? The Lebanon? Down as far as Egypt?

We simply can't let everyone in who "needs" it. No matter how sad their sob story. Take for example the awful treatment in Africa of the homosexual population - life imprisonment or death. But, if one in ten of the population is gay, can we really take in 100 million gay men from the east coast of Africa alone? Can we take every hungry child globally? These are hard decisions, ones which perhaps people don't wish to actually have to think about - it's easier to say "come, come" than to sit and think about the realities of our global population.

alemci Mon 04-Mar-13 13:42:03

Then maybe there should be more atttention given by politicians to clamping down on the men who marry someone from the subcontinent who does not speak English etc and it may be a forced/arranged marriage etc. Perhaps he has to prove he can look after her and not just go off etc when he loses interest. It is not really helping the economic situation by having more incomers who rely on benefits.

Vesela I don't agree with the CB situation that Feelforce outlines. Does the mother claim CB in Portugal as well

lainiekazan Mon 04-Mar-13 13:56:38

Yes, alemci, I do have a problem with these marriages.

I was at Heathrow recently and a flight from India came in. I couldn't help noticing the numbers of very young pregnant girls who got off this flight, all accompanied by older women. Were they brides from India? Or were they girls who had been taken out of school here and sent off to India to get impregnated in order to facilitate the entry of other people? It really made me feel uncomfortable, because, as I said, it wasn't one or two, but twenty or so.

alemci Mon 04-Mar-13 16:25:24

I think it is the tip of the iceberg Lainie.

feeltheforce Mon 04-Mar-13 16:27:52

vesela Sorry but I still feel the CB situation is wrong. My DH earns good money - he pays a lot of tax and we get bugger all in return. As a SAHM I really welcomed my CB. But anyway I accept that if it helps people in the UK then cuts have to be made but really, why should someone who doesn't speak English, isn't British and has never been to Britain (and is never likely to from what I can tell) get a proportion of our tax revenue. It's not like her father is British either. All because of EU rules. Do you really think for one minute that if DH went to Portugal/Poland or anywhere else that I would be getting CB from that country? I can tell you having lived in Italy that that is definitely not the case.

Like alemci says - who knows if the mother is getting CB in Portugal or even Poland (where she originates). She may be remarried (I haven't asked).

This is what UKIP tap into and they have a point.

vesela Mon 04-Mar-13 16:54:53

Why should the fact that she's never been to Britain come into it, though? Her child's father is working in the UK.

If your DH went abroad to work, then depending on the situation you'd get either CB from the UK or CB from that country plus a top-up from the UK if the UK's CB is higher.The various scenarios regarding who pays CB when one parent is working in another country etc. are here.

David Cameron won't be able to change the freedom of movement rules without leaving the EU.

feeltheforce Mon 04-Mar-13 17:00:17

I understand your point about my friend working in the UK but he only works part-time so I am guessing (though not sure) that he also receives some kind of benefits to top up. My point is he is not a UK citizen, he came here because by his own admission you can get more in the UK. Then we are now also supporting his estranged family who live in another country. We just cannot afford this. Clearly we can't because otherwise my CB wouldn't have been stopped this year.

indahouse Mon 04-Mar-13 17:00:41

That's just mean, feeltheforce.

alemci Mon 04-Mar-13 18:55:54

Not really. We are in so much debt and we need people here who are economically viable. If he works part time and needs top ups it seems too generous.

feeltheforce Mon 04-Mar-13 19:04:21

I don't see what is mean about that. I am looking at immigrating to Australia at the moment. Our visa was dependent on us being able to support ourselves and not being any kind of burden on the state at all. But in the UK we seem to allow lots of people to come here that are nothing but a burden on the state. I honestly don't think anyone objects to people who come here and work, pay their taxes, add to society and the economy. Like someone said before we are a nation of immigrants.

The reason UKIP are making gains is because many people feel the EU has taken away our control of borders and immigration. I'm not at all anti EU in fact I am very pro. I love that we can all travel round and work but I wouldn't expect another country to fund me if I couldn't fund myself.

vesela Mon 04-Mar-13 20:21:52

feeltheforce - I know what you mean, but it's kind of like the old poor laws where parishes refused to deal with each other's vagrants! There comes a point at which it makes more sense to administer these things at a higher level.

Imagine you were living in another EU country - children all at school there - and you lost your job. You were reasonably confident of being able to get another one before too long, but in the meantime you really really needed unemployment benefit to get by. Would you up sticks and go back to the UK to claim it, or would you stay put and be glad that you were able to do so?

feeltheforce Mon 04-Mar-13 20:29:58

vesela you are quite right and it's a great idea. The problem is that the partners are unequal. Some countries offer more work, higher wages and lots of benefits and others have nothing much to offer (which is why their citizens often bowl up here).

I'll give another example. In our little market town we have a permanent fixture of a Romanian gypsy who sells the Big Issue. She has done for the last three years. I have got to know her and she is a nice lady. But again by her own admission she is one of a group of Romanians who live in a town 25 miles away and they then fan out every week to sell the Big Issue in various smaller towns. She talks about using food banks and obviously must be on benefit as must the rest of compatriots. And this has been going on for years. No effort to retrain, get a job and her English is still no better. I know she must have come from a bad situation and I know gypsies have it hard in Romania. However, once again the UK is looking after other countries citizens.

vesela Mon 04-Mar-13 21:30:42

I didn't agree with the ruling that selling the Big Issue constitutes self-employment for the purposes of claiming benefits, but from next year whether it does or not isn't going to matter, since she'll have the right to be in the UK regardless. And I don't see why she shouldn't be, when she's an EU citizen - it's not the UK looking after other countries' citizens, it's the UK looking after other EU citizens.

Lots of gypsies come from the Czech Republic to the UK in order to be able to work (they are massively discriminated against here on the job market - they had jobs under communism but it's now very hard to get one as a Roma) and so that their children can go to an ordinary school instead of being sent straight to special school, as usually happens here (then they go to the UK and the children who had to go to the "special schools" turn out to do well). Very far from ideal, obviously, and attitudes towards Roma here aren't changing much despite years of money from EU social funds. Pressure is being put on the Czech government to stop the special schools thing, but the sanctions are never enough.

alemci Mon 04-Mar-13 21:31:20

If someone sells big Issue they become self employed and get an NI number thus opening up an avenue to benefits etc. I think there was a thread on here a while back about a women who took the council to court about it etc.

Yes Feel the Force it is definitely not a level playing field. It doesn't seem reciprocal and we have more to offer.

Abitwobblynow Tue 05-Mar-13 06:40:12

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

BIWI Tue 05-Mar-13 08:01:05

WTAF?! Do you realise how very, very, very racist your post is? What horrible words.

Still, at least you are honest ... hmm

Xenia Tue 05-Mar-13 11:00:11

The proposal for immigrants from within the EU to have to show X years of NI contributions which is Germany's solution and one the UK is seriously looking at is wise as it would comply with EU law and would be applied to people in the UK and outside. As I am in favour of people working hard I also think it would help those who don't work in the UK and choose not to (and yes they do exist). That requirement would then help if a lot of Bulgarians and Romanians come over and did not work and had no history of paying national insurance contributions in their own land.

As for none EU immigrants there are fairly tough entry requirements now.

NHS tourism is not as well controlled as it might be and the recovery rates for UK student loan people who disappear abroad and don't pay and those who are due to repay to the NHS for their NHS care when they leave is not very high. It can be quite hard to recover money abroad.

vesela Tue 05-Mar-13 11:08:32

Xenia - it's very, very, very hard to get a job if you're a Roma person in the Czech Republic. There is very blatant discrimination on the job market, and from what I've heard it's no different in Romania and Bulgaria. And yet in the UK they manage to get jobs straight away. In other words, having X years of insurance contribution at home isn't a guide to how employable/hardworking you are.

vesela Tue 05-Mar-13 11:09:58

and what about people straight out of university?

vesela Tue 05-Mar-13 11:13:08

sorry, forget that - I see now that you're talking about having to have made X years of NI contributions before you can access benefits.

olgaga Tue 05-Mar-13 13:08:09

I don't see how access to the NHS could be based on NI contributions. Many people - those who have just left education for example, have no record of NI contributions. Unless your test covers all EU citizens, not just those from elsewhere in the EU, it will be discriminatory.

Access to health care within Europe is already covered by the EHIC.

It will also be difficult to bring in habitual residence tests for welfare because (a) the EU have already ruled than anything but an EU-wide residence test is discriminatory (in 2011) and (b) the bureaucracy would probably be so costly it would be counter-productive.

A test for housing would involve everyone having to show they either worked in the area (which most immigrants will be able to show, as work is generally why they're here), been educated there or have family links. So there will be no real opportunity to restrict access to housing.

I think this is just Tory kite-flying, in response to their embarrassment over the Eastleigh result.

vesela Tue 05-Mar-13 13:36:39

What the German government was trying to do has recently been ruled illegal by a German court, anyway.

This idea that "the UK is the only one that takes the rules literally - all the other countries find a way round it" is a myth.

vesela Tue 05-Mar-13 13:57:40

Olgaga - agree that it's just kite-flying.

As the FT says today in an article looking at the (very limited) options, "One other thing worth noting is that benefit tourism is really not a big problem, whatever people’s perceptions of it might be."

olgaga Tue 05-Mar-13 14:43:14

Yes, it's all politics.

Take a look at this. Then note that the hapless Clegg is chairing the cabinet committee which is examining the "options". grin

Xenia Tue 05-Mar-13 15:09:33

Yes, vesela but many countries are not as generous as us. I think Bulgarians might get £10 a month for a child say and in Spain everyone gets their unemployment benefit for only 2 years.

if we have one of the most generous systems then people flock here.

The fault is caused by not harmonising benefits throughout the EU but allowing free movement. You either need identical taxes and benefits and free movement or neither.

Here's an article from Speigel about how Germany are trying to modify those rules

niceguy2 Tue 05-Mar-13 15:18:11

A test for housing would involve everyone having to show they either worked in the area (which most immigrants will be able to show, as work is generally why they're here), been educated there or have family links. So there will be no real opportunity to restrict access to housing.

I disagree. I think this is a common sense solution. Let's say (for argument's sake) that you introduce a new rule that priority for housing is given to those who can demonstrate they have worked or been educated in the local area for five years.

Would you seriously still say we should treat an EU 'immigrant' differently if they've been in the local area for five years and paying UK taxes for that time?

ttosca Tue 05-Mar-13 15:23:58

Yes, vesela but many countries are not as generous as us. I think Bulgarians might get £10 a month for a child say and in Spain everyone gets their unemployment benefit for only 2 years.

How about some facts and figures to show how relatively generous the UK is compared with the rest of europe? Comparisons with Bulgaria are misleading because it is a much poorer country than the UK. If you don't compare like with like, then you could use Afghanistan or any other number of the world's poorest countries.

Spain everyone gets their unemployment benefit for only 2 years

And do you have any idea what percentage of benefit claimants (JSA, presumably) claim for more than 2 years? Because:

That generous benefit system, just how generous is it? Well, as it happens, the OECD’s database has fairly recent data (2007) on replacement rates across the industrialised world (for people who were paid between two-thirds and 100% of average earnings when they lost their jobs):

touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/09/sometimes-i-wonder-why-i-bother/

The notion that Eastern Europeans are travelling across Germany and France, ignoring Scandinavia and the low countries to get at our benefits system is, frankly, bonkers. People who know anything about UK social security have known for decades that one of its characteristic features is its relative lack of generosity.

ttosca Tue 05-Mar-13 15:29:23

In the interests of fairness and open debate, you can look at the fullfact website here:

fullfact.org/factchecks/is_the_uks_welfare_system_the_most_generous_in_europe-27368

Which looks at the various measures of 'welfare generosity' and 'welfare expenditure' of the UK compared with europe and the OECD.

In summary, it depends what you are measuring.

Xenia Tue 05-Mar-13 16:23:19

I think that link supports that the UK is generous - "While the UK was found to have larger than average "social assistance schemes, including housing and family benefits, as well as unemployment assistance" several other nations offered better benefits in other areas." Housing and family benefits are some of the most important things as housing costs are the biggest expenses for most people. We are about to get a benefits cap next month of £26,000 a year maximum benefit which means some people get a lot more. £26,000 is still £34,000 of before tax and NI are taken off. It is very generous that you do nothing at all, no work etc and still can be handed on a plate in effect £34,000 of income before tax for doing nothing and that is the cap it is coming down to for many and is regarded as a sacrifice!

feeltheforce Tue 05-Mar-13 17:41:29

xenia I am shocked if that is true. I am shocked that we pay that kind of money out!

Talkinpeace Tue 05-Mar-13 18:06:29

Historically the UK was the only country that allowed free movement of its citizens within its own borders
which was why people could flock to the cities and launch the Industrial revolution.

By restricting free movement of people within the UK we would be taking a 500 year retrograde step of the type that has hamstrung Euro are economies and is currently adversely affecting the Chinese economy.

Surely the issue is to make better use of the indigenous population and then employers would not seek to hire immigrants.

PS Immigrants have a different type of NHS number - I know because I have one.
And our NI numbers do not tally with our birth years - so we can be easily spotted by officials.

olgaga Tue 05-Mar-13 18:23:52

niceguy that isn't the point. Whatever scheme you think is fair, the point is that we have to apply the same requirements to all EU citizens, including those from the UK.

So a UK citizen moving to an new area to take up a job, where they had no record of residence, education or family links, would also fail to meet the criteria.

ttosca Tue 05-Mar-13 18:27:04

xenia-

Immigrants are not arriving here en masse claiming, or even hoping to claim, £26K in benefits.

You cannot decide policy based on a tiny minority of cases or by Daily Mail headlines.

Since you copied and pasted a quote from the article, so shall I:

"The relative 'generosity' of the UK's benefits system in comparison to other European countries can be measured in a number of different ways, and the outcome will vary depending upon which metric and dataset is chosen.

With this in mind the UK can rank anywhere from top to below average in a European league table of benefits expenditure. If Fraser Nelson was referring specifically to government spending on welfare, he may well have a point, although there is also plenty to challenge his assertion."

You should also show some evidence that large numbers of migrants come to the UK to claim benefits. I don't know of any evidence to support that claim. I have seen a few articles which claim that immigrants are a net contributor to the economy, OTOH.

So a UK citizen moving to an new area to take up a job, where they had no record of residence, education or family links, would also fail to meet the criteria.

Which also creates geographical immobility in the labour market. Those who are unemployed will find it harder to move to where the work is - Brit or not.

olgaga Tue 05-Mar-13 20:03:01

Exactly, Mamma.

All this is just hot air.

By the way, Xenia you do realise that £26,000 includes housing benefit, and most people who are anywhere near the cap are living in London?

olgaga Tue 05-Mar-13 20:16:21

I might add, there are 5.8 million benefit claimants. 67,000 households will be affected by the benefits cap - 80,000 adults and 190,000 children.

Talkinpeace Tue 05-Mar-13 20:21:33

A friend of mine gets very nearly £25,000 in benefits per year.
She has not worked for 15 years and will not work until both her husband and daughter die of the crippling illness from which they suffer.
Want to swap places with her?

olgaga Tue 05-Mar-13 20:48:47

Talkin, quite right to point out that for most people, claiming benefits is a safety net, not a career choice.

Xenia Wed 06-Mar-13 08:53:46

Y,es it is absolutely amazing how generous we are and yes I know the new benefits cap/limit when it comes in of £26,000 net of tax (£34k gross if you were a worker you would need to earn to receive what the state gives free for a parent with children) will include housing benefit but gosh plenty of very very hard working mumsnetters work full time all year and earn less than that and pay for childcare.

(I'm not particular anti immigration but am anti benefits tourism. China as a big problem that you can only claim healthcare and schooling in your home state so all those millions who move for work with China are trapped by that rule. it is certainly an international issue).

niceguy2 Wed 06-Mar-13 09:16:08

Olgaga. I understand that the rule applies to UK citizens. I also understand that it could create some immobility in the labour market.

But this is the real world and every action has a consequence. There isn't a magic wand solution. If people are that concerned about benefits being sucked up by immigrants then this may be the price which has to be paid.

The only other option is to leave the EU which would be akin to the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Plus I have to question how many UK people would move into an area they have no ties to and expect the state to support that move. So put another way. If I am born & bred in Manchester, how common would it be for me to decide to move to Leeds, a city which I have no ties with and without having found a full time job first.

olgaga Wed 06-Mar-13 09:40:21

If people are that concerned about benefits being sucked up by immigrants then this may be the price which has to be paid.

That may be so, but the practicalities rule it out.

Talkinpeace Wed 06-Mar-13 11:08:45

niceguy2
How many graduates stay in the town they went to Uni and then look for work?
Of the people I was at Uni with, none of us live near our parents now.

niceguy2 Wed 06-Mar-13 14:23:56

Well in your example if you stay in the town you studied in then you can demonstrate you were educated in the area.

If you return home you will be able to demonstrate family in the area and therefore have links to the area.

If you get a FT job in a new area then you should be able to move and get whatever support is available.

Talkinpeace Wed 06-Mar-13 14:35:55

for a year ....
so can many immigrants ....

sorry but this is going back to Feudal times - restricting the free movement of people within an area

what is your diameter ?
by county, by borough

kite flying, unenforceable rubbish

BYE

alemci Wed 06-Mar-13 16:34:57

Yes I think priority should definitely have been placed on the people who have lived in the area and possibly their parents/family etc have paid the council tax/rates to the local authority.

I have heard from so many different sources that this hasn't been the case with local housing departments and I think the locals have been discriminated against. What other country would allow people who have no ties with GB to be put first or before people who had been on the housing list for years'?

Why has this taken so long to realise and why was it ever allowed in the first place. No wonder there is such a housing shortage and high property prices.

olgaga Wed 06-Mar-13 22:47:37

Yes but without additional costly layers of bureaucracy and inconvenience, and identity cards, would any of that be achieved?

Funny how there was a massive hoo-ha not so long ago over the subject of ID cards. Now we suddenly seem to be quite receptive to the idea of having to show proof of identity!

lrichmondgabber Thu 07-Mar-13 12:13:57

I see a possible Labour led Coalition after the general election. Suit Lib-Dem activists better

niceguy2 Thu 07-Mar-13 14:36:57

sorry but this is going back to Feudal times - restricting the free movement of people within an area

What rubbish. Noone is saying you can't move. If you want to move you are completely free to do so. The only difference is that the taxpayer won't fund said move.

Funny how there was a massive hoo-ha not so long ago over the subject of ID cards. Now we suddenly seem to be quite receptive to the idea of having to show proof of identity!

Personally I think ID cards are a sensible thing to have. I objected to the last ID card system quite simply because it was stupid and too expensive.

The proposed system was going to cost £5.6billion. And we all know what happens to the costs of govt projects. They never come in under budget. We were going to have to store our biometrics onto the card. OK....except noone but only select govt agencies was going to have the biometric readers. So you go into a bank or take out a mobile phone contract. Proof of ID was going to be based upon the photo! So in my view £5.6 billion+ was not a sensible use of money to get a card which 99.9% of the time I'd have to rely on the photo anyway.

Propose a sensibly priced system and I'd be all for it.

I reckon it'll be LD&Lab in government after the next election. Sounds odd but here's why.

Labour will take the LD vote in every constituency it holds or is close to gaining. So it will gain marginals from the Tories and the LDs.

The LDs will mostly hold off the Tories in the south, aided by a doubling in the UKIP vote and some tactical votes from Labour supporters. Their vote will collapse elsewhere.

In Scotland the SNP will increase their vote but make no gains, while the Tories will lose their single seat there.

Toad has spoken.

DolomitesDonkey Sat 09-Mar-13 06:19:34

What are the actual figures for welfare consumption from non-UK nationals?

I ask because I live in NL which this week released figures indicating that there are currently 600,000 registered EU workers here, 150,000 from "former eastern block". Of these (600k), only 21,000 are claiming welfare! That is an incredibly low figure - far lower than the general population I'm sure!

We have ID cards here - and at first I HATED them, felt it was an intrusion on my personal life and circumnavigated (i.e., didn't get one!) for the best part of a decade. Good luck getting access to services without evidence you're entitled.

vesela Sat 09-Mar-13 09:34:52

Dolomites Donkey - the figures from February 2011 are that 38,000 EU nationals are claiming JSA, of which 13,000 are from countries that joined in 2004 or later.

That concerns JSA only, of course - as we know, there are many people who can't stomach the fact that someone from outside the UK is claiming child benefit.

Toad - sounds very likely to me!

alemci - They do have ties with GB. They're in the EU.

alemci Sat 09-Mar-13 12:14:31

yes I know Vesela but I still think the people who live in the area and have been paying council taxes or their parents have should get priority in social housing not newcomers who have been in the country for a short while. This is what has partly caused such as housing shortage in social/council housing.

I am not saying this is necessarily caused by EU countries either

fiftyval Sat 09-Mar-13 12:46:43

alemci - our district council has recently introduced a policy of adjusting the housing list by prioritising people with a local connection. They had figures which showed that over 25% of people on the exisiting list had no local connection whatsoever. Part of the problem of managing the list is that people can get themselves on it via the internet and alot of people just add themselves on regardless of the likelihood of getting a house ( you have to bid when houses come up and then your 'banding' is looked at to decide who gets the house). Many people don't bother bidding but remain on the list.

vesela Sat 09-Mar-13 22:22:51

Social housing is one of the biggest factors limiting labour mobility as it is - why make it worse by strengthening the need for a local connection?

niceguy2 Sun 10-Mar-13 00:20:53

there are many people who can't stomach the fact that someone from outside the UK is claiming child benefit.

Unfortunately we have a lot of stupid people in this country.

DolomitesDonkey Sun 10-Mar-13 09:15:50

Not EU-related, but has anyone else seen the figures about those claiming UK pensions who are aged over 100? Over a million a week going to countries for OAP's over 100. Incredible. Either a few death certificates need to be chased up or we need to learn how they're all so damned healthy! wink

ironman Wed 13-Mar-13 09:13:44

The Tories used UKIP colours on the leaflets in the Eastleigh election, did anyone else notice? Still did not do them any good! I don't agree this was a protest vote, as 900,000 voted UKIP in the last election. Many people are sick and tired of the three main parties, and as many agree with the views of UKIP
(particularly on immigration) the electorate will vote for them more and more in the coming years.

I expect the UKIP vote will increase a bit, but it won't be anything like their share of the vote for Euro elections. By-elections always see a big protest vote, because people who vote in them aren't voting for a new government. Sure, UKIP did well in Eastleigh. Respect have also done well in by-elections: so, I recollect, did the BNP some years ago.

UKIP support won't get unlocked without a change to Britain's electoral system. Given that even AV - the very modest alternative to FPTP - was rejected, there isn't going to be any change any time soon. Most UKIP sympathisers will simply back the Tories because they won't believe that the UKIP candidate will be at all likely to win. Also, most UKIP candidates won't have many credentials: the party will probably put up whoever it can get to stand.

I will laugh and laugh and laugh if the Tories' vote gets split by UKIP. The Tories were against AV because they knew they had the most to lose from it - LD/Lab support swing voters being far more numerous than LD/Con. If AV had been adopted, UKIP first preference votes would mostly have redistributed to the Tories. As it is, any increase in the UKIP vote will simply be at Tory expense, and (hopefully) cost them seats.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now