To think 335,000 extra people coming to the UK in a year is too high

[jdoe8]

Where will they all live? What jobs will they all do? I know it may help GDP, but that is irrelevant as GDP per head is the important thing.

It does seem to be race to the bottom with more part time work , uber type work and the country is borrowing more and more and the national debt is 35k per head now.

Inkanta, I am sorry for confusion. I am Swedish by birth, yes. My child is British. I think to be honest that the gentleman that took offence to me and my son being here was more concerned about my son being black, than he was about my Swedishness. Trust that makes sense

I doubt he was clear in what passed for his own "mind" WHAT he was "concerned" about Lndn

Adults verbally abusing children should be a crime in its own right.

*the gentleman that took offence to me and my son being here was more concerned about my son being black"

Why would he be concerned about your bi-racial child? We have hundreds of thousands in GB. My children are bi-racial (husband is English).

Southhall Girl,

I have no idea, you would need to ask him I guess. I posted about this in the summer in greater detail and was nearly outed as a result so I will not be posting any further details. You can always report me/post if you think there is something untoward going on.

Sorry but your post has really irked me. Yes we have hundreds of thousands bi racial children here. But that doesnt mean that those children do not suffer from racisim/xenophobia does it? As for my my son offended this man because of the colour of his skin, how the hell would i know?

Mine havent, and they are bi-racial.

Excellent, They are very lucky, praying it will stay that way for them

MrsSnootch I can see where youre coming from.

and whehere I am there is a LOT of rascism towards the few white British in my area.

my ndns are from somewhere in Europe, they came and blatantly boast that they have HB and benefits , and housed.

AFAIK no one looks disabled, they are able bodied and able to work yet they choose not to as they can fleece the government, and if the gov refuse them they show the 'rascist' card.

its not fair.

but maybe were blaming the wrong people, its the government and their nanny attitude and so called politiocal correctness that theyd step over thir own child to feed another

I don't mean to sound rascist saying this but this country never looks after its own first. we are last in the queue.

and me and DC are disabled and get fuck all from thisgovernment.

wasonthelist, I'm afraid you are totally wrong
No, we were talking at cross purposes. Your definition of "tighten up the rules" was different, that's all, and since the claim was that our government "could tighten up the rules if it wanted" without further detail, there was a misunderstanding.

What I think we agree on is that with FOM the only way to tighten up the rules would be to make our benefits (and some parts of health) system contributory lkke most of mainland Europe. I doubt it's lack of will that informs that - it's tantamount to impossible. Our systems are fundamentally at odds with much of the rest of the EU, which has always been an issue.

It's a difficult issue. Beveridge's original plan was you paid in and then you drew out. That is what much of the EU does. I also remember decades ago when contributory benefits were much much bigger than very very small non contributory supplementary benefits for those who had never paid in (no NI). However the non contributories have gone up (to protect the less well off) to a point where there is not that much difference between the two so why bother work, why bother paying in? Also much of the EU you get your one year of benefits to help you whilst you find your new job (and indeed in the UK most people who lose their job are back in work in a year).

Once we leave the EU in 2019 we will probably be able to discriminate against those coming from the EU and elsewhere and those already here in terms of benefits. Currently we have to treat people from the EU the same as people born in the UK for benefits unless we negotiate special opt outs.

Manumission
Re the prawns going abroad for cleaning, yes it is true.
But we are a ruralish area and possibly hard to recruit - but probably low pay and 24 hour shifts was the main problem.

to make our benefits (and some parts of health) system contributory lkke most of mainland Europe. I doubt it's lack of will that informs that - it's tantamount to impossible. Our systems are fundamentally at odds with much of the rest of the EU, which has always been an issue.

Problem is though, is that socially we're not like the rest of Europe. Young people here don't have extended families to rely on the way Europe does. And it's not uncommon for young people to be shown the door by their parents when they are no longer a source of tax credits or have an income (goodness knows I've seen enough people on here being cheered along for doing that). They would suffer the most, and the safety net for them is already shaky. I think a lot of people on Mumsnet don't realise that not everybody has a supportive bank of Mum and Dad.

The story about sending Scottish seafood to Thailand is a classic illustration of how fucked up our "global" economy is.

It is utterly ridiculous that it's cheaper to send stuff 1000s of mile using untaxed pollution causing finite fossil fuels than it is to have it done locally - how can any sane person defend that? And yet, it's just accepted with a shrug.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/6146974.stm

Problem is though, is that socially we're not like the rest of Europe

Not just socially, our legal systems and culture are a lot more different than people like to imagine. The EU, rightly or wrongly, hasn't been able to take sufficient account of that - demanding we behave as if we were in mainland Europe.

And it's not uncommon for young people to be shown the door by their parents when they are no longer a source of tax credits or have an income (goodness knows I've seen enough people on here being cheered along for doing that). They would suffer the most, and the safety net for them is already shaky.

cultures can change. it's a chicken/egg phenomenon. Maybe taking away benefits will do that. I of course hear the reverse all the time: you person should be pushed out because they can claim HB.

And the UK's system is not necessarily the most generous - it is just the easiest to access without paying any contributory taxes.

is it any wonder that people who really can't take care of themselves get a paltry amount of help. We spend 25 billion a year on housing benefit, and that doesn't include social housing. why is it a mystery that we can't properly support those who really need it?

A reset must happen with our Benefit system, it must become contributory for all.
Such has become the reliance on benefits, it will take a generation.
Protect people that qualify today, educate the nation on the actual economics of who is actually paying for it, serve notice on what the changes will be and see the cost of living half in real terms over 30 years.
Doling out free money ultimately increases purchasing power, drives up prices and eventually impoverishes all, evidenced by today's squeezed middle.

A reset must happen with our Benefit system, it must become contributory for all.

I have a feeling that if that idea had any political appeal, it would have been advocated by now - the probable truth is it's a vote loser, at least under our current electoral system.

A reset is much easier said than done. Especially with such high housing costs. The public upset over the 'bedroom tax' suggests very little appetite to do anything that would hurt the poorest and often most vulnerable in our society. Making benefits contributory would probably give some the kick in the right direction that they need, but it would also cause immense suffering for others. It would possibly increase homelessness and crime rates too.

Trying to do it on a gradual basis would be very tricky - given how useless we are at doing anything involving admin.

Agreed. And the chances are there would be a change of government and strategy in the interim that would interfere with what was meant to be an organised plan.

In the past my work brought me into contact with families who were reliant on the state in a way somewhat similar to young children who are reliant on their parents. It was inconceivable that they would ever be able to make themselves sufficiently presentable to get a job and, even if they did, their lack of concentration span and aspects of their behaviour would make it hard for them to keep the job for long. It is very hard to know what the state can do to improve the independence of such people. I came to the view that, while their poor decisions were difficult to comprehend, they were not able to make different decisions and you have to accept them for who they are. The cost to the state, in terms of benefits, housing and social services involvement is huge, but necessary. Without it more people would be destitute and the rest of us would probably have to cope with correspondingly higher crime rates.

In the context of EU freedom of movement - what do these kinds of people rely on in other EU countries - or don't they exist there?

No idea!

Im the context of the lead up to the referendum, it should have been possible for the EU to distinguish between freedom of movement and freedom to receive benefits when people move, so that member states can have welfare systems that meet the needs of their own citizens with a more certain idea of what the number of likely recipients would be. If the EU had made that small adjustment then I don't think it would have been such a political hot potato before the referendum and I don't think it would have disadvantaged EU citizens who have moved here for job opportunities.

Genevieva I agree with your analysis - although I can see the EU argument that it is up the UK to do everything their way or leave. FWIW I think David Cameron expected to get more concessions from the EU in his pre-referendum negotiations, whereas it seems the EU said "you've had plenty already - that's it".

'Cut off your nose to spite your face' springs to mind.

I have little time for draconian inflexibility. One size never fits all. In fact there is a pretty good chance it fits nobody. Maybe that is why there is so much upset all over Europe at the moment.

Agree, re political will. It is difficult to sell short term pain for long term gain.
For example we have the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a well meaning social justice charity defining poverty as earning less than 60 percent of the median wage.
We have perhaps lost some perspective on definition.