to think it proves lots of people want change

[adsy]

That ukip are making such huge gains in the elections.
If mnetters could temper their hysteria of screaming racism, I think it is a clear indication that the fundamental principals of the party of no toEurope and no to continued mass immigration are very important to a lot of people

I look forward to the day all those people shouting racism are on here bemoaning the fact that they cant get a school place for their child, a hospital bed for their sick mother, a job for their husband or a place to live for their adult children

But they do already. They already moan about these things and think some money from somewhere should be spent on improving services OR they say there is no money.

But if there is no money then why are we allowing more people in?

Either there is money to build more schools, improve general infrastructure and so on or there isn't.

I didn't say they can't move to the UK. But you can't simply come to the UK and practice those professions here with only qualifications earnt overseas.

I know German doctors who commute to uk weekly to work on our hospitals but apparently that's ok fir Farage because his wife is German as the pay is so much better than in Germany.

In the end we are talking about the widening gap between rich and poor which is absolutely Tory party policy. And here we are arguing about immigration. Even though there are corporations and rich individuals profiting massively from this country at the expense of poorer individuals.

But politicians would rather we fought for scraps with anyone else than actually held them to account.

Why did you write that if you know immigrants don't just get benefits for arriving in the country?

Immigrants get benefits after three months.

That is not a long wait is it! And that was only recently introduced, implying that before.....they could get benefits sooner.

But if you're worried about the widening gap between rich and poor why on earth would anyone vote UKIP.

The introduction of a flat tax would only benefit the rich and the poor would be far worse off.

In the end we are talking about the widening gap between rich and poor which is absolutely Tory party policy. And here we are arguing about immigration. Even though there are corporations and rich individuals profiting massively from this country at the expense of poorer individuals

No that gap widened under Labour.

How exactly have the poor people of this country benefited from more poor people coming in?

How utterly ridiculous to say that a widening gap is Tory policy!

benefits in Europe www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html

Agreed, tiggytape - my instinct is that many of the people now voting for UKIP are working-class people living in (unglamorous, often forgotten) multicultural areas who would previously have voted Labour. As you say, this issue has crept up on Labour because thus far they've totally ignored it or dismissed it as a Tory problem.

Immigration should never be off-limits for discussion. Perhaps, though, the debate should be couched more in terms of general population growth (since that's the most pressing issue) than race. It's the increasing scarcity of public resources (austerity measures plus increasing demand) that will affect people most directly, not the precise ethnic origins of their neighbours.

EG -

GERMANY
Health care Only available with a health insurance card (But EHIC card applies)
Child benefit £155 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit Immediate means-tested allowance for jobseekers who have made "intensive efforts" to find work
Housing benefit Full amount of housing costs available immediately

"I know German doctors who commute to uk weekly to work on our hospitals because the pay is so much better than in Germany."

Because Labour threw a ridiculous amount of money at doctors to keep them happy.

If a widening gap between rich and poor is Tory party policy why did the gap widen under Labour but narrow since the Tories (ok, the coalition) took over?

The underlying principle of EU law is that we can't discriminate against citizens of EU member states. Consequently, if we offer benefits of a particular type or based on particular principles, we have to provide those both to UK and other EU citizens on the same basis.

Equally, if a UK citizen goes to another EU country, it must offer the same benefits on the same basis to that UK citizen as it does to its own citizens.

I wish somebody would do some sort of survey on exactly what a person would be entitled to if they went to live in France, Germany and the rest of Europe. Would they get a house, free healthcare, housing benefit and so on.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1489221/ doctors salary/hours worked

Viviennemary there's a link a few posts above you that provides a brief summary of just this.

'Why did you write that if you know immigrants don't just get benefits for arriving in the country?'

Because they have for years been getting 'benefits' for arriving in the country in the name of free healthcare for one. The fact this has changed only in the last mere few years is here nor there, its something thats been a problem for a while as you pretty much admit yourself, and only now has anything been done.

Hmmmm let's see

Well there's the current housing boom in London...we don't seem to be doing much about that do we? Austerity? I don't see much if that in the south east and the rest of the country is far, far behind in terms of house prices.

The lack if action over zero hours contracts.

The bedroom tax

The rhetoric which seems to blame people on low incomes, characterising them as 'scroungers'

When people cannot even participate in the market - such as housing market - there is no 'trickle down' effect. They are left on the shore while the good ship 'property' sails over the horizon.

that's dated mind - other data suggests GP's are marginally better paid but specialist are around 5/6 in the league table

Viv I have post a link that does exactly that :)

Is the UK benefits system more generous than those in other EU countries?

The systems are very diverse, so comparisons are difficult.

In terms of total spending on social security per inhabitant, the UK does not rank highest. In the UK the figure for 2010 was nearly 8,000 euros (£6,660; $10,880), the EU statistics agency Eurostat reports. In France and Germany it was nearly 9,000 euros, while in Denmark and the Netherlands it was above 10,000. At the other end of the scale, spending in Bulgaria and Romania was below 2,000 euros.

The Open Europe think-tank, campaigning for radical reform of the EU, says some countries have more flexibility than the UK in the area of "social assistance" benefits. Such benefits - targeting people in need - are usually means-tested and come out of general taxation, rather than salary contributions. In the UK, income support and housing benefit fall into that category.

In the UK, a bigger portion of welfare is funded by the state than is the case in Poland, France, Germany or the Netherlands. In those countries, more is funded from individual and employer contributions. In other words, more benefits are linked to previous earnings.

On the other hand, in several countries, including the Republic of Ireland, Sweden and Denmark, the share of state funding is higher than in the UK.

In Germany, there is a two-tier welfare system - part based on contributions, part non-contributory. An EU migrant made jobless in Germany would get up to 70% of current salary in the first year of unemployment. After that, the unemployed go onto a non-contributory system called Hartz IV. Germany has objected to paying those benefits to EU migrants who have not made sufficient contributions through work. But that policy has been challenged in the courts.

In Spain, welfare payments depend to a large extent on where you live as payments are handled regionally, rather than centrally. In Madrid there is a two-year residency test for RMI, which is paid to unemployed jobseekers. The benefits system in the Basque Country is rather less restrictive.

In Bulgaria, the EU's poorest country, you do not qualify for unemployment benefit unless you have been working for at least nine of the last 15 months.

only EU residents get 'free' healthcare ...

everyone else has to prove residency or pay some or part costs

Thanks for that link gordy interesting reading....

here is oxfam's report which states poverty in the uk is descending to Dickensian levels

Thanks for the links. Will read Oxfams report though I find it hard to believe but I will try to keep an open mind.