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

[Binnyforthewin]

Surely our PM releases that without National Security there is no Social Security? One is entirely dependent on the other.

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.

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.

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

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..

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.

,

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.

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.

Wow! I didn't think Hitler being a war criminal would be statement anyone would object to. I think that tells us the type of person I'm responding to here. So I think I will stop.

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.

Anyway on topic: Wes Streeting has made a very sensible statement

"Schools, hospitals, homes, those are important things. But they're valueless if those things are reduced to rubble. That is the experience of the Ukrainians and that is the kind of threat we are operating amongst. That's why we must commit and continue to commit to increase defence spending.

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.

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

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?

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

I confess I missed that pledge, remind me?

People closing down the discussion has led to why we’re here. There are policies used well in other countries but the determination to be shut off to the problem has meant it’s kept mounting.

Most don’t want 1000 plus barracks nearby, they’ll say no.

I just did.

I think there should be purpose built holding centres. Like the Nightingale hospitals as they were built quickly and cheaply. And people should be kept there while their claims are reviewed and not allowed to wander around. Like most other countries. We worry far too much about the well being of foreign individuals (remember only 1% of asylum claims are genuine) at the expense of the national interest.

You don't understand what communism is, do you?

You think you saying it is enough? Ok. Well, they didn’t.

They didn’t what?

So would a barracks be acceptable to you if people were detained and not free to leave?

How do you figure 1% of asylum claims are genuine when 70%+ are accepted?

I think we need soldiers in those barracks rather than men of fighting age from enemy countries. Its terrifying that barracks are empty.

I see you have edited your message. Yes not free to leave.

Yes thats the interesting question isn't it....a whistle blower has said that 1% only are genuine. One might suspect that the government are letting in fake asylum seekers just to get the perception of the numbers down......

Labour didn’t pledge not to use barracks.