"National Security can't come at the cost of Social Security" - WTAF?

I confess I missed that pledge, remind me?

i wouldn't cry over that. You're penalised in Wales now if you want multiple properties or even a 2nd one.

Like, for example, a refusal to even touch pensions, which account for the largest amount of our social security bill?

I find it incredible that all governments of all colours, for decades have insisted we can’t afford to support disabled people to live lives where they can contribute to society, but we can absolutely afford to triple lock pensions.

1.9 million pensioners in poverty (16%) (40% of pensioners could claim pension credit but don’t)

4.5 million children in poverty (30%) - (income support benefits are cut)

4.5 million disabled people in poverty (28%) (PIP is targeted for reduction)

Exactly who’s votes do you think they are buying?

Are you someone who wanted to see an end to the use of hotels? Where did you think people would be moved to?

Ah yes. There is a difference. The PM doesn't grant contracts personally which is what you were suggesting. And Infosys was just one of the firms invited to compete.

Do you think the free trade agreement with India should be changed so their firms can't compete for UK work out of interest? I do agree that off shoring good jobs isn't a good thing.

I’m not sure anything is the only solution. And if you look at the detail there are differences in the EU version that would have made it lawful for the UK. It’s possible the UK will end up in a coalition of countries doing something similar but it should be accompanied by some investment and planning that can make it work for the UK more than just ‘we moved people from A to B and warehoused them’. There are swathes of people who want a better life, there are mutually beneficial options if we think it through. Unfortunately a vocal
minority are less keen on the thinking part and have the notion we can just close the borders.

They aren't rumours. They are government contracts. All about the outsourcing, not developing businesses and industry in this country and then you get the brain drain effect.

In the good ol' days to get the dole you had to physically go to the dole office and be interviewed about what you were doing to get work.

,

People are clearly getting desperate now. Most people would hate having hundreds of undocumented illegal men milling about their village or town. I think people would be more confident if they believed the government actually cared and was intending to remedy the situation. Unfortunately AB just said another of his genius lines that everyone needs to "take their fair share" of these men. As if it's the country's responsibility to deal with the situation caused by the government. Rather than the government dealing with the situation for the benefit of the country.

Hitler committed suicide in his bunker so he never did stand trial.
And please don't tell us all what you think we should all agree to because it's irrelevant..

Labour ran on ‘smash the gangs’ so that. They set up a pledge which meant no barracks.

No, they didn’t, but the use of military sites was well established by the previous governments.

Where did hotel protesters imagine AS would be moved to, do you think? They can’t all have been foolish enough to think their protests would lead to summary removals.

The policy (Rwanda and off-shoring) is the only solution. It is being pursued by other EU countries and we will find ourselves soon doing something similar. So Labour will have wasted two years before they go back to the original policy that they ended in a knee jerk virtue signaling manner without any replacement plan.

I see the one in one out policy is going to end and France are trying to make us take EU migrants now. That's going to go down well.

What happend to innocent before being proved guilty. You can't brand him a war criminal before the trial just becuase he hasn't been arrested. Some people on here are become more and more despotic.

Labour are missing that barracks instead isn’t the win they’re looking for.

They didn’t run on we’ll get rid of hotels but use barracks with 1000 plus men instead or HMOs.

I’m not being patronising - I’ve explained myself clearly, you’re wilfulfully ignoring the timeline to defend a policy you feel should have been pursued. I see no point continuing to explain.

How can a reduction in migration two years into this government be a result of the actions of the previous one?

ETA the post Supreme Court legislation was actually quite quick, and wasn’t held up by the opposition. That suggested to me that the govt new what they were proposing was unlawful and had prepared legislation on that basis.

No need to try and be patronising. It doesn't make you look clever.

Any reduction in migration is due to the effects of Tory actions.

We can rehash the timing of the legislation process if you want. But laws don't get passed quickly. Particularly if you have a large number of left MPs who don't really want to reduce migration. And now Labour are in, look at how the ILR time frame where you can claim benefits has been reduced from 10 years.

They're doing it to farmers too. The government clearly want to kick farmers off the land and are using government policy to make farming so unpalatable that farms are sold. They presumably want to either build on prime farm land or cover it with solar panels. Bit short sighted obviously particularly if we end up in a war as humans can't eat houses or solar panels but by then the land will have gone or be degraded.

You seem unable to grasp the timeline that’s a matter of public record.

‘Headless chickens’ who have brought down both net migration and small boats, and moved most asylum seekers out of hotels (all Tory promises).

What is your evidence for this? (rather than Daily Mail type propaganda...).

For example the media talks a lot about PIP when in reality the DWP own figures show that fraud is close to 0% for that particular benefit as it is in fact incredibly hard to qualify for.

You also have to show ID documents, proof of address, bank details and so on to qualify for any unemployment benefits.

To suggest that 'most of this benefit money' goes into fraudulent claims is just nonsense frankly.

Also many people on UC actually work but their employers pay poverty wages so they have to top up their salary with benefits. Funny how this is never mentioned when talking about benefits: why should the tax payers prop up businesses who don't pay decent wages?

This. The good private landlord would be priced out.