Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Harriet Harman showing us why any respectable British person hates Labour.... Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by planetearth)
    I don't see what the problem is?

    Contributing to the education of those abroad, in poorer conditions will lead to a wealthier and improved global economy, and will not only benefit Britain as a result of the mass globalization that has taken place, but the rest of the world too.

    Although, to be frank, in our current economic situation it isn't ideal.
    If someone comes into this country, and then goes onto welfare payments, they are a drain on the British people. Generally, people don't welcome leeches.

    If they then send that money abroad, rather than spending it in the UK, they're also a direct drain on the British economy too.

    To praise people who migrate to this country and then leech off the British people (who, let me remind you, aren't in the sturdiest of fiscal health as it is) as heroes would be an insult to taxpayers across the country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TotalLifeForever)
    It was a counter-assertion. I think we are just ideologically opposed, so let's leave it at that. I am a liberal bordering on socialist, and you are a conservative.

    Out of interest, what do you think of the Lib Dems?
    Yes, I don't think we'll ever agree on this.

    I think they're okay, better than Labour at any rate. However, I would have had much more respect for them had Nick Clegg not sold out over tuition fees. Don't get me wrong, I support the tuition fees rise, but I don't agree with the principle of what he did. It's one thing to compromise and twist the truth (every politician does that), but to blatantly lie to the general public like he did, well that's just wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    In her defence, she's the shadow international development spokesman, and sending money home to look after poor, struggling families is charity.

    I agree its a bizarre thing for the (shadow) government to be promoting, but it's a very noble way of using legitimate welfare money they are entitled to - far better than spending it on alcohol/cigarettes etc. that many people do. You could argue they shouldn't be accepting the benefits if they didn't need them, but who can honestly say if they were entitled to free money they would turn it down?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Cornerstone)
    We shouldn't strip away the rights and joys of having children based on their income. Besides they might not be able, for whatever reason, to get hold of contraception
    I don't think there is a major concern for contraception..... It is the different attitude towards family planning and reproduction which will supposedly change the demographics of britain over the next few decades...
    the indigenuos and immigrant attitude to family planning is way different (due to different reasons)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Yes, I don't think we'll ever agree on this.

    I think they're okay, better than Labour at any rate. However, I would have had much more respect for them had Nick Clegg not sold out over tuition fees. Don't get me wrong, I support the tuition fees rise, but I don't agree with the principle of what he did. It's one thing to compromise and twist the truth (every politician does that), but to blatantly lie to the general public like he did, well that's just wrong.
    Well one thing we agree on anyway! I find it strange though as the Lib Dems are more left-wing than Labour, yet Conservatives like them. Probably because they compromise so muched in favour of the Conservatives. I will never vote Lib Dem with Nick Clegg as the leader at any rate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TotalLifeForever)
    You're so Conservative that it's ridiculous. If that money is being used to educate people in the Third World, and to keep people alive, then I don't mind that I will be a little lower on income and unable to get that Xbox, or iPod, or whatever material thing. Life is more important that wealth.

    Typical Daily Mail sensationalising it to make it seem like all immigrants are doing it to mock us all and our system.
    Totally agree!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TotalLifeForever)
    Well one thing we agree on anyway! I find it strange though as the Lib Dems are more left-wing than Labour, yet Conservatives like them. Probably because they compromise so muched in favour of the Conservatives. I will never vote Lib Dem with Nick Clegg as the leader at any rate.
    The LibDems tend to be more centrist, or at any rate, more willing to compromise, hence why I don't mind them. I think he's ruined their prospects though, I'm sure many people would have had much more respect for him and his party if he'd have given up his shot at power in favour of his principles.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    You're just banging on about wealth redistribution.

    If people have earned their money and worked hard for it, why should the government thiev from them and give it to others?
    Yet you're getting pissed off at hardworking immigrants sending their wages home to help their families. The Daily Mail article is highly biased and distorted. Read the link posted earlier in the thread to see what Harriot really said.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    Are you suggesting immigrants on benefits aren't given houses?
    I'm suggesting that you ("all immigrants are given a house") are wrong. No, all immigrants are not on benefits (In fact the vast majority aren't), and no all immigrants do not get free houses and no, being on benefits does not automatically make you qualify for a free house.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Yet you're getting pissed off at hardworking immigrants sending their wages home to help their families. The Daily Mail article is highly biased and distorted. Read the link posted earlier in the thread to see what Harriot really said.
    I've read that. If it's their own money, they can do what they like with it. However, some of them are on welfare benefits.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    I've read that. If it's their own money, they can do what they like with it. However, some of them are on welfare benefits.
    Have you ever been on welfare benefits? There's barely enough to pay the bills, let alone send home.


    They might be getting tax credits and child benefits as well, but that says more about the system than them. Nobody, immigrant or native, would turn down free money even if they don't really need it. I remember you bleeting on about losing your child benefits a while ago, for instance. Not like you really need it. So what if they send that home as well? They're paying taxes and contributing to society.

    Which, when all is said and done, is more than most people on this website, including you and me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Have you ever been on welfare benefits? There's barely enough to pay the bills, let alone send home.


    They might be getting tax credits and child benefits as well, but that says more about the system than them. Nobody, immigrant or native, would turn down free money even if they don't really need it. I remember you bleeting on about losing your child benefits a while ago, for instance. Not like you really need it. So what if they send that home as well? They're paying taxes and contributing to society.

    Which, when all is said and done, is more than most people on this website, including you and me.
    No I haven't, as I'm 16. Neither have my family, because they work for a living.

    Actually, I'd turn down EMA if I was offered it, as there are people who need it and I get more than full EMA anyway, so it would be a bit selfish of me to take it.

    Lol, if you actually read my posts about that, you'll see it was the principle that I was moaning about. Basically, the fact that the poor are getting paid per child while middle and upper class people aren't getting anything. Discrimination at it's finest
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Labour are so shameless when it comes to gaining minority votes.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    No I haven't, as I'm 16. Neither have my family, because they work for a living.

    Actually, I'd turn down EMA if I was offered it, as there are people who need it and I get more than full EMA anyway, so it would be a bit selfish of me to take it.

    Lol, if you actually read my posts about that, you'll see it was the principle that I was moaning about. Basically, the fact that the poor are getting paid per child while middle and upper class people aren't getting anything. Discrimination at it's finest
    Why read your posts when I can read the Daily Mail? Same thing in the end. :awesome:

    So basically you're complaining that people who can look after themselves and their children, some to a high degree, aren't getting anything whilst those who struggle to provide food, heating, etc. are being helped? Obviously there are people who **** about with the system, but you're sounding incredibly selfish right here. Especially, when we consider your whining about the child benefits you lost.

    Social mobility in the UK isn't as great as people would like to believe. It's easier for us to fall than it is for us to climb. Poor people need help, why shouldn't we give it to them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Why read your posts when I can read the Daily Mail? Same thing in the end. :awesome:

    So basically you're complaining that people who can look after themselves and their children, some to a high degree, aren't getting anything whilst those who struggle to provide food, heating, etc. are being helped? Obviously there are people who **** about with the system, but you're sounding incredibly selfish right here. Especially, when we consider your whining about the child benefits you lost.

    Social mobility in the UK isn't as great as people would like to believe. It's easier for us to fall than it is for us to climb. Poor people need help, why shouldn't we give it to them.
    Witty. :rolleyes:

    I'm complaining about people having a price incentive to have children. Sorry, but I don't want to be working to support someone elses children. We all have to make decisions on what we can afford, why should poor people be exempt from that? You don't pay someone per child.

    My personal view is you give everyone child benefit for the FIRST child, and that's it. If they can't afford it, they don't have anymore. Also, if they're already on JSA, don't give it them at all. They knew the financial situation, they didn't have to have a baby.

    We can't encourage people to be irresponsible. The poor have to make the same decisions as everyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Law123mus)
    Totally agree!
    Thank you! Seems like a real liberal v conservative debate here.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Witty. :rolleyes:

    I'm complaining about people having a price incentive to have children. Sorry, but I don't want to be working to support someone elses children. We all have to make decisions on what we can afford, why should poor people be exempt from that? You don't pay someone per child.

    My personal view is you give everyone child benefit for the FIRST child, and that's it. If they can't afford it, they don't have anymore. Also, if they're already on JSA, don't give it them at all. They knew the financial situation, they didn't have to have a baby.

    We can't encourage people to be irresponsible. The poor have to make the same decisions as everyone else.
    Which would lead to widescale abortions or abandonment of the second child as more often than not, accidents happen. Then of course you've got that problem that poorer children tend to be less well educated about sexual protection and tend not to use it cause they distrust it, etc. Unfortunately, they can't really get better education, cause that costs money they don't have.

    You can't advocate a ridiculous system like "we'll only support your first child". You do realise it's already on a tiered system £20.30 per week for the first child, £13.40 per week for every children thereafter, right? On top of JSA, which is only £130 every two weeks, at best, so they're hardly rolling it.

    The one you want sorted out is actually Disability Benefit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TotalLifeForever)
    Thank you! Seems like a real liberal v conservative debate here.
    Lol the whole of tsr is full of liberal vs tory(evil).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Which would lead to widescale abortions or abandonment of the second child as more often than not, accidents happen. Then of course you've got that problem that poorer children tend to be less well educated about sexual protection and tend not to use it cause they distrust it, etc. Unfortunately, they can't really get better education, cause that costs money they don't have.

    You can't advocate a ridiculous system like "we'll only support your first child". You do realise it's already on a tiered system £20.30 per week for the first child, £13.40 per week for every children thereafter, right? On top of JSA, which is only £130 every two weeks, at best, so they're hardly rolling it.

    The one you want sorted out is actually Disability Benefit.
    No, it would lead to people taking more responsiility for their actions. It is not the job of the state to support your children. Again, it's not our fault they're not educated. We give them sex education, free condoms, etc. If they choose not to use it, it's their own fault.

    It's not ridiculous at all, it makes perfect sense. Yeah £130, as well as housing benefit, council houses, free perscriptions, eye tests & frames, dental care, free meals for their children, EMA for their children etc.

    They all need sorting out.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    No, it would lead to people taking more responsiility for their actions. It is not the job of the state to support your children. Again, it's not our fault they're not educated. We give them sex education, free condoms, etc. If they choose not to use it, it's their own fault.

    It's not ridiculous at all, it makes perfect sense. Yeah, as well as housing benefit, council houses, free perscriptions, eye tests & frames, dental care, free meals for their children, EMA for their children etc.

    They all need sorting out.
    You have no idea about this, do you, aside from what you read in the Daily Mail?

    "We" do nothing. Stop acting as if you're the one doing anything to help them. Sex education in this country is a joke, even in the best of schools. It does little to connect the realities of pregnancy and sex with what they teach you. That needs to be improved a ****load before it can be considered even a tiny bit effective. Free condoms, yay, everyone get those. It's hardly a preserve of the poor.

    It does not make perfect sense. You'll be removing one of their fundamental human rights, all because they were one of the unlucky multitude to be born into a poor family. It will also punish people for accidents. It'll lead to an increase in abortions or abandoned children, putting pressure both on the NHS and the Social Services and could possibly lead to gender selection, akin to China.

    People in council houses pay rent for those places. They are for people, on the whole, with jobs. Housing benefits do not cover everything, as I only too well know. They are useful, but not eternal. Do you really think anyone getting 65 quid a week can pay for rent on top of dentist appointments, prescriptions and all the rest you listed as needing done away with? Hell, the money they get each week for a child barely even covers food.

    All the articles in the Daily Mail about the excessive spongers have all dealt with Disability Allowances. The people getting those great houses, with ****loads of money for their children, have all managed to get Disability benefits.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.