If you consider yourself to be left wing

[MaryMaryVeryContrary]

Do you believe there should be limits on migration (as a net figure) and benefits (as total % of GDP/cap per household), or do you think there should be no limits at all?

I’m a centrist, but whenever these topics are discussed I notice people claiming to be left wing become a bit uncomfortable, and usually make aspersions on the person talking about it before trying to move the conversation on. It’s like they know deep down we can’t just allow them to spiral but equally they’re at loathe to actually say it out loud because of how it looks.

Not sure why you think Rotherham is not a negative thing. And you need to look at who funds studies etc. You are right that some things people blame on immigration are incorrect, no one has a problem with immigration per se its the sheer numbers and culture also has a big impact (not colour of skin as you are slurring me with).

This is similar to what bothers me a lot.

I work in a library and so during the day, we have quite a few people who are homeless in some way. There is a good proportion of addicts, many who are antisocial. Some because the drugs make them that way and they are otherwise nice people, which is sad. And some are awful sociopaths.All in and out of housing because of the effects of the drugs.

There is also a good proportion that are unhoused for other reasons. Lost a job and lost an apartment, couldn't find a new one even after getting a new job. Ill with cancer and had to move into town. Lost housing and is disabled so can't find a suitable place. Mentally ill and can't live a stable life. INtellectually disabled and probably should be in care but is an adult and can't easily be made to at this point.

All without a place to live. All without doctors too. And many more without doctors who are housed.

And yet over the past two years there has been a huge influx of immigrants. Quite a few are nurses and clearly we need nurses. But it's also the case that every fast food place in the town has been bought up by well off new arrivals, and now employs almost entirely less well off new arrivals. Who are doing things like living in tiny one person flats with a roommate.

I can't help but think how that feels for the (mainly male) guys spending all day in my library struggling to find housing.

Tbh, it feels like some are willing to throw these people away because they are not glamorous enough. They eat boring food, and don't look cosmopolitan or exotic, they are working class often, they don't vote right. (Actually, this is not as true as people think - when you stop and talk to them you find their backgrounds and interests are fairly varied. What they have in common is typically low financial resources for one reason or another, and often not a lot of family that can help out.)

Me too, I'm 48.

Lots of older boys then were still doing haying in the summer too.

Ultimately imported labour for this stuff isn't a long term solution, unless we are committed to the idea that the people doing it should remain poor and willing to work in conditions we aren't.

One of the things I've found nuts is where I see these jobs advertised for locals, you are expected to house and transport yourself. Out of a rather low wage. But with migrant workers, they will house you and bring you to the job.

Yes, this is an ongoing issue we have.
Made especially challenging as we are paediatrics, so if someone keep missing appointments we can't just discharge as it's the parents not bringing the child, and the child that suffers. We then have to do safeguarding referrals which are time consuming and takes away from clinical time.

I would love to be able to fine people who do not show. Not those who always attend and then some emergency which happens, but the frequent non attenders, late arrivals. Which are often also the biggest moaners when there is a delay for them.

"Not sure why you think Rotherham is not a negative thing."

Weren't a great number of those jailed British born?

"Out of a rather low wage. But with migrant workers, they will house you and bring you to the job."

They take it out of their wages.

That sounds very difficult. My son is under paediatrics and has been since he was little. We always prompt (allowing for roadworks normally 🙈). It's a shame others can't be as considerate. I'm sure it's difficult without knowing the full background. I guess no easy answer for that I just hope things improve for you soon.

You can be left wing on some things and otherwise on other things. It’s not rocket science

I think:

There should be a process for accepting asylum seekers and everyone who fits the criteria (based upon the level of persecution and risk in their home country) should be allowed in and supported for a limited period e.g. 3 years (i.e. enough time to learn the language, do some training and get a job). They would be eligible for housing and benefits for the first three years only. We should offer them free English lessons and training in areas of work where there are job shortages, and student loans for college / university study. After the three years they lose eligibility for housing and benefits, although there would be a separate process for those with disabilities or ill health.

I’ll add that if I were in charge I would also raise minimum wage and bring in rent caps, so that nobody in full time work would have need of benefits and they truly would only be for the sick or disabled.

For economic migrants, I think there should be no cap on numbers, but they would not be eligible for council housing and access to benefits and the NHS would only be granted after a certain amount of tax has been paid, e.g. equivalent of three years full time on minimum wage.

" but they would not be eligible for council housing and access to benefits and the NHS would only be granted after a certain amount of tax has been paid, e.g. equivalent of three years full time on minimum wage."

The rules are much more stringent than this already. Migrants have no recourse to public funds for quite a long time.

I think people should think before they have children and not have anymore if they already need benefits. That will also reduce the number of children in supposed poverty.

Poverty should also be an absolute level not relative.

Thanks, I’m not very knowledgable about the current system, just sharing what I thinks is fair and would be happy to vote for (as a left leaning person).

I truly think rent caps and decent council housing would solve the benefit problem.

High levels of benefits should not be a thing. Once housing is cheaper, the cost of benefits comes down considerably.

Pay workers a decent living wage, that will afford them some pleasures in life, and people are motivated to work.

It really is that simple!

I think this is an issue and in London it is definitely the case, it is not about race as it impacts Londoners that have been there a long time. By ignoring it I do think there is ample chance for the very right wing politicians to make it an immigration issue, lots of people who have been pushed out of London jump on that line of thought and because they don’t look into it properly agree with these populist politicians. Londoners are priced out because they don’t want to live 3 to a room. Suggesting that everyone is living harmoniously is putting your head in the sand and I think we don’t want to go anywhere near what is happening in the Scandinavian countries and Germany, Austria etc.

The most deprived regions are East Yorkshire, Durham and Tees Valley, West Wales and the Valleys and the West Midlands.

London is 2nd only to the West Midlands in having the highest poverty rate in the UK. It used to, until very recently have the highest.

(Amongst pensioners, London has the highest poverty rate btw).

One of the main reasons why London's (still high) poverty rate has gone down is because of large-scale displacement of lower income Londoners (sometimes forcibly by London councils)... often to the West Midlands...

@Againname

The list I gave is the list of the most deprived region in the UK, some London boroughs may feature but London as a region/area does not.

There hasn't been enough displacement of people to lower the poverty rate, it will be the fact that London incomes /unemployment levels are lower than other regions.

Again, the point stands that apart from 1, the most deprived regions in the UK have very little immigration.

Why not?

I'm in favour of more immigration, for economic, liberty and humanitarian reasons.

People who migrate bring their culture with them, and can transmit their culture to their children. It's what we celebrate when we celebrate multiculturalism.

Personally I think that's generally a good thing.

But not all aspects of all cultures are good. Some bits are awful. In the Rotherham sex abuse case it's legitimate to ask what role that played.

One of the mainstream explanations for what went wrong is that authorities did not want to appear racist and so failed to investigate properly. Also that there was underreporting of victims from Asian families for cultural reasons.

If you are someone who, like me, wants to see immigration work well, that should be a cause of concern, to be addressed, not something that is shameful even to bring up.

I think primary and secondary schools providing breakfast and lunch is a great way to help child poverty. The difficulty is just because people are given the money to feed children in benefits it doesn't mean they will be using it for that.

The difficult thing with caps is it isn't the child's fault they are born and some people wouldn't see this as a deterrent. Hopefully if they can provide more support for childcare costs to enable people to work this will make a difference. At the moment I know some aren't motivated as they "get more" money on benefits. Due to rents being so high (highest I have known) and cost of living.

"Rotherham sex abuse case it's legitimate to ask what role that played"

Because we do that with white British sex offenders? Is it their Britishness that played a part in their offences?

"One of the mainstream explanations for what went wrong is that authorities did not want to appear racist and so failed to investigate properly."

This often presented as fact, but in fact a far larger reason why the cases weren't investigated properly were the misogynistic and classist attitudes from police to the girls, who said that they were making a "life style choice". Strangely exactly the same attitudes their abusers had. The data on the rate at which Asians are arrested by South Yorkshire police ( a higher rate than the white population) suggests that claims of being afraid of being called racist if they made arrests weren't too accurate.

There was some element to the racist accusation issue within the council, but the front line social workers were documenting it all.

"that should be a cause of concern, to be addressed, not something that is shameful even to bring up."

It isn't a concern because it isn't representative of the behaviour of that particular population grouping.

.

think this is an issue and in London it is definitely the case, it is not about race as it impacts Londoners that have been there a long time. By ignoring it I do think there is ample chance for the very right wing politicians to make it an immigration issue, lots of people who have been pushed out of London jump on that line of thought and because they don’t look into it properly agree with these populist politicians. Londoners are priced out because they don’t want to live 3 to a room.

Yes, relevant for both British Londoners (including 2nd, 3td 4th etc generation immigrants) and newly arrived immigrants. It's hardly left-wing to exploit lower income and vulnerable people, British or immigrant.

Also not all leave by choice (as much as needing to leave, to be able to afford more than a substandard hovel is a choice). London councils forcibly displace vulnerable homeless people.

And it doesn't only affect London. Knock on effect on the areas where lots of displaced lower income London 'blow-ins' move or are moved to.

I suspect the issues partly explain the feelings of despair of people in Left Behind highly deprived areas like Clacton. I may be mixing Clacton up with somewhere else but I understand going back decades it's been one the places where displaced and priced out lower income Londoners have moved or been moved to?

Displaced, uprooted, communities broken up, and the resulting lost of community and family support. This is something that affected London years before many other parts of the UK. It's obviously not only due to mass immigration though. Consequences of RTB, and of investors buying up London housing. And, as Aladdinzane noted yesterday, London for a long time has experienced large-scale internal migration (British 'blow-ins').

Doesn't the West Midlands also have fairly high immigration levels?

With London's high levels of deprivation. According to reports and studies that comply the stats, it's because of the housing unaffordability issues there.

The two regions with the highest immigration levels, West Midlands and London, have the highest deprivation levels in the UK.

That isn't a coincidence.

Also wrt other regions. Total figures may be low but within regions there's unequal distribution. And generally it's the poorer areas that have higher numbers, which means less advantaged people are more impacted by added pressure and competition for affordable housing, jobs, and access to public services.

With access to social housing, I understand that once someone has leave to remain, they can be considered 'priority need' as being a migrant can, depending on individual council's interpretation, be classed as 'vulnerable'.

Isn't it something like 50% of social housing in London headed by someone born abroad? Wouldn't be a problem. Except that vulnerable homeless Londoners, who need their community and support networks, are being shipped out of London. This includes 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.

If people want mass immigration, fine no problem. But it's absolutely not ok or moral to fail to cater for this, including ensuring the less advantaged don't suffer as a consequence. So there's a need for more social housing, jobs with wage protection, and improved public services. For all who need it.

"Doesn't the West Midlands also have fairly high immigration levels?"

Its about the national average, but I did say "apart from 1".

"The two regions with the highest immigration levels, West Midlands and London, have the highest deprivation levels in the UK."

Yet London isn't listed in the regions of the highest deprivation levels. You are now trying to make the data fit your agenda.

https://pa.media/blogs/fact-check/most-social-housing-residents-in-london-were-born-in-the-uk/

Like you have done with the 50% of household heads statistic.

"and generally it's the poorer areas that have higher numbers, which means less advantaged people are more impacted by added pressure and competition for affordable housing, jobs, and access to public services."

The numbers are so low in these regions that this is highly unlikely, as access to most public services is not on a small local level but city/town/region.

The data doesn't fit your narrative.

Wrt the impacts of mass immigration (and so regional migration of British 'blow-ins').

It's not the fault of individual immigrants or British regional 'blow-ins', who also experience difficulty because of policies that fail to cater for increased populations.

It's the fault of policies have failed and continue to fail people, especially the less advantaged.

Failire to acknowledge and address the impact of an increased population (on a regional or national level) is not ok.

Of course it's vital that any discussions are compassionate and done without hate or hostility towards any groups. It's equally vital that the discussions happen and that solutions are found, that take into account the needs of people already here.

There's more than one option. Lower immigration numbers is one. Another is ensuring more even settlement of immigrants across the UK (and within regions). Alternatively an option is for massive investment in social housing, jobs with wage protection, and public services. Or a mix of those options.

It's up to everyone to decide, calmly without hostility towards any groups, which option they prefer.

What about having to take depo or an alternative with proof to get benefits?

I would be open to any amount of immigration on the condition they have to be resident here for say 5-10 years before being eligible for benefits. I don't think immigrants are the problem it's the bone ideal idiots born here that is the issue. I would love to see us extend the benefit sanctions to you are only eligible for full benefits after working for X period of time with exception only for those that can convince a panel of doctors they can't work.

London also needs more HMO style housing built like student halls so individual rooms but shared kitchen/bathroom/living room etc.

Because we do that with white British sex offenders? Is it their Britishness that played a part in their offences?

This strikes me as a case of presupposing the conclusion. You have first assumed that British culture does not encourage sex offences, and then concluded from this that Pakistani culture does not.

Both steps seem logically dodgy to me.

Or, at least, that if we are comfortable that British culture does not encourage sex offences, we should not ask the question of other cultures.

If I'm misunderstanding the logic here, could you explain it a bit more for me?

(I wrote 'Pakistani culture' as a shorthand mirror to the reference to British culture in your post, but of course it's more complex and localised than that on both sides. And I'm certain we both agree that many Pakistani people are British too).