National politics

[Hugo]

It may only be a protest vote as non of the other political parties are listening to the electorate.   There are genuine concerns amongst the general public about immigration and the Benefit system but the mainstream political parties are just not listening and not prepared to do anything positive about those concerns.
Wales is not the only country concerned about those issues, England is and so are  other countries in Europe as expressed in the recent votes.

I would say the 'concerns' are not genuine, but deeply misguided. Just look at the actual facts of both benefits and immigration

It's rather condescending to say or even think that the 27.49 per cent of the population who voted for UKIP are misguided.     If anyone thinks that the present levels of immigration and benefit payments are sustainable then they should wake up to the real world.
It seems that anyone who expresses concerns over these matters is deemed a racist, fascist, nazi or even a reader of the DFM. which is  unfair and makes people reluctant to speak out against immigration and benefits.
Statistics can be made to show anything, depending on your point of view so don't put too much emphasise on those figures and you as a Union rep should know that fact better than most people.
David Cameron made a comment recently about a certain benefit and complained that the majority of the benefits were being claimed by immigrants and mentioned Poland in particular.   He was immediately criticised by the Polish Prime Minister for his views, but why?   There are about 28 members of the EU but Poland was responsible for claiming 41 per cent of those total benefits so was he right or wrong to state the obvious?
Immigrants work in the UK and yet they are entitled by EU law to claim benefits for children who still live in their native country.  To use Poland again as an example, when the recession hit the UK many Poles began unemployed and returned to Poland to live and they then went to the Polish Benefit offices to sign on there.    The Polish government then advised them not to sign on in Poland and to continue to claim benefits from the UK as the benefits were higher in the UK than in Poland.     I didn't believe that at first until I looked it up and found it to be true.
Many of the fraudulent claims for benefits were made by immigrants too, but I don't suppose you will find these statistics anywhere.
There are obvious flaws in the EU and as other countries have shown they want less but better say from the EU while having more say in matters that affect their own country.


 
 

[Ian]

It's rather condescending to say or even think that the 27.49 per cent of the population who voted for UKIP are misguided.

Actually, Hugo, it wasn't even close to 27.49% who voted, as the turnout was - on average - around 31% and of course only those of eligible age are voters, which reduces the total figure to about 6% of the  population, which is a little more than the estimated readership of the DFM, BTW,  or about a 9% share of the total possible vote.

If anyone thinks that the present levels of immigration and benefit payments are sustainable then they should wake up to the real world.

Well, Hugo, as you suggest further in, statistics are flexible in what they can be used to prove, so unless we have an absolutely unimpeachable source of information regarding both benefits and immigration I'm unsure how you can make that assertion. What sources seem to be reliable suggest the opposite. And your concern about benefits - however laudable - doesn't take into account the tax avoidance schemes which HMRC themselves estimate cost the UK over £20billion.

I do have to say, however, that I love the way you rate the DFM readers as worse than "racists, fascists or nazis"  WWW  WWW WWW

It seems that anyone who expresses concerns over these matters is deemed a racist, fascist, nazi or even a reader of the DFM

David Cameron made a comment recently about a certain benefit and complained that the majority of the benefits were being claimed by immigrants and mentioned Poland in particular.

You're correct, but there's a little more to the story. Firstly, UK residents who go for work to any other EU country can claim in exactly the same way for their children living here. That's because this is part of an EU-wide policy, so unless and until we know exactly how much is flowing toward us from UK nationals in the EU, we can't get a clear picture.

But the other factor is the amount.  At most, it's estimated to be no more than £50m per year. Which, by way of comparison, is fifteen times less than the government lost when they virtually gave away the Royal Mail. In another comparison it's roughly 2% of what the average government department spends on envelopes per year. So in those contexts is £50m really that big a deal?

It's certainly not when you look at what Osborne has given to his millionaire pals.  "Something like £29 billion of tax relief is given to the higher rate tax payers of this country each year.  That sum is shared by about 4.4 million people. That’s £6,695 each."

To be fair, Hugo, I think you have the wrong target in your sights.

[DaveR]

The issue of how crowded the country is getting is a very valid one, I think. The Uk currently has a Population Density of 256 people per square kilometre - this compares with an EU average of 116.

At what point is the UK too full to accept any more people? B2R, I'm interested to know - where would you draw the line?

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/data/main_tables

The population density is not dangerously high, several countries in the world are higher, including Belguim and Holland. This isn't a reason to restrict immigration, which is FALLING anyway.

The figure of 256 is for the UK as a whole, I understand the figure for England is far higher, 411 I think, which is higher than practically every other EU country. How high can it get before peoples' quality of life starts to suffer?

You mention immigration is falling - I dont think that's correct - this recent article shows immigration increased by 35,000 to 212,000 last year:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/22/net-migration-uk-212000-final-quarter-2013

[Ian]

The figure of 256 is for the UK as a whole, I understand the figure for England is far higher, 411 I think, which is higher than practically every other EU country. How high can it get before peoples' quality of life starts to suffer?

I'm pretty sure that the UK population of about 65m is higher than almost all EU countries in comparison with out total land area.  But changes to the EU have to be made because I suspect cultural and social structures are the areas which will suffer most. Last time we were in London the only native English speaker we encountered was the taxi driver. 

[DaveR]

It's certainly not when you look at what Osborne has given to his millionaire pals.  "Something like £29 billion of tax relief is given to the higher rate tax payers of this country each year.  That sum is shared by about 4.4 million people. That’s £6,695 each."

So, everyone who earns over £31,866 (2014/15) is a millionaire?!

Incidentally, the author of that article is employed by Tax Research LLP - a Limited Liability Partnership. Handy for saving on your tax bill those LLPs are...
http://www.bakertilly.co.uk/publications/should-every-business-be-an-llp.aspx 

[Ian]

So, everyone who earns over £31,866 (2014/15) is a millionaire?!

Stop conflating points  :rage: And the UK has almost 350,000 Net Millionaires at the moment, each of whom got a tax break from Osborne. They'll be wondering where the next set of stirrups is coming from, at that rate  WWW WWW WWW

[Hugo]

It's rather condescending to say or even think that the 27.49 per cent of the population who voted for UKIP are misguided.

Actually, Hugo, it wasn't even close to 27.49% who voted, as the turnout was - on average - around 31% and of course only those of eligible age are voters, which reduces the total figure to about 6% of the  population, which is a little more than the estimated readership of the DFM, BTW,  or about a 9% share of the total possible vote.

If anyone thinks that the present levels of immigration and benefit payments are sustainable then they should wake up to the real world.

Well, Hugo, as you suggest further in, statistics are flexible in what they can be used to prove, so unless we have an absolutely unimpeachable source of information regarding both benefits and immigration I'm unsure how you can make that assertion. What sources seem to be reliable suggest the opposite. And your concern about benefits - however laudable - doesn't take into account the tax avoidance schemes which HMRC themselves estimate cost the UK over £20billion.

I do have to say, however, that I love the way you rate the DFM readers as worse than "racists, fascists or nazis"  WWW  WWW WWW

As I said before, you can make statistics fit whatever it is you believe in but whichever way you juggle your figures whether it is 27 or 9 per cent it cannot be denied that UKIP had more votes than the other parties so something fundamental is very wrong with the system.    In reality the Government have no more idea of how many immigrants are in this country than Joe Public has.
My concern about benefits  doesn't take into account the tax avoidance schemes which HMRC themselves estimate cost the UK over £20billion. because that is a separate matter.
Benefits should be funded from money that is readily available and Cameron is trying to address that by capping benefits which is a step in the right direction.
Tax avoidance and tax evasion are two different things but both should be addressed and resources pumped into HMRC  to recover the missing Billions.    Will the Government pass Tax laws that make tax avoidance impossible?  We'll just have to wait and see.   It's not just the rich and famous who are guilty of tax avoidance either.  How many of us have had to call in a tradesman and asked the question "how much off for cash"  so many of us are guilty of fueling the black economy.

[DaveR]

They'll be wondering where the next set of stirrups is coming from, at that rate

You appear to have a very cliched and old-fashioned view of who Britain's millionaires are? In reality, I suspect a lot of them are just fairly ordinary people who have worked hard all their life to build up a business, for example. Contributing 45% of their income via taxation seems to me like they are certainly doing their bit to finance public services.

[rhuddlan]

I see the BNP lost both its seats. That is very good thing!
Beware statistics, Disraeli said there are Lies, damned lies and statistics.
 How do we increase the turnout....pay people to vote?

[Ian]

You appear to have a very cliched and old-fashioned view of who Britain's millionaires are? In reality, I suspect a lot of them are just fairly ordinary people who have worked hard all their life to build up a business, for example.

Well, I was joking, and if you take into account property valuations then I suspect there are many more than the figure quoted. On that basis there are quite a few in Llandudno. But they may have worked hard to build up a business; that's not the issue.  My point was simply that it's relatively easy to target the benefits system and bemoan the loss of a few millions, when the government is actively aiding the lifestyles of those who could easily afford to pay more in tax to redress the balance.

It's all a question of fairness and what sort of a society we want. When Hugo says "My concern about benefits  doesn't take into account the tax avoidance schemes which HMRC themselves estimate cost the UK over £20billion. because that is a separate matter." I disagree, because the tax avoider or - even worse - the tax evader is denying the exchequer the money it needs to create a just and fair society.

I suspect we're seeing a society which is becoming divided by wealth in a way that we haven't seen for years. For the first time in a very long time more young folk are moving into rented accommodation than buying houses, and I suspect that marks the start of a distinctly two-tier culture. Landlords (the name itself a feudal epithet) have never had it so good, but there's a danger here: folk who live in rented accommodation may not feel truly invested in their local society. When that happens dissociation can follow and society - in the worst cases - can begin to fragment.

If that were to happen in a big way (extremely unlikely in the area, I know) then worrying about the benefit system will be the least of our concerns.

[Ian]

How do we increase the turnout....pay people to vote?

Some European countries have made it illegal not to cast your vote.

[Michael]

  I have just spent around 10 mins reading the last few posts. I THINK I understand the various arguments but --- I must be ignorant. What does DFM stand for? And how or where do you read it?

[Hugo]

Ian will explain better Mike as it's his favourite newspaper.            WWW


 :golf:

[Fester]

Well, I've just heard on the BBC TV news that 30% of the Welsh population ADMITTED to being racially prejudiced in a survey.

Given that it is actually a criminal offence to be so, then I think we are going to have to urgently build a a massive amount of prisons to lock everyone up! 

[Ian]

 

What does DFM stand for?

D= Daily, M=Mail.  I leave it to your imagination what the F stands for :-)))

30% of the Welsh population ADMITTED to being racially prejudiced in a survey. Given that it is actually a criminal offence to be so

It's not a criminal offence to be racially prejudiced. Thus far, Government hasn't started to regulate our thoughts and opinions, but give it time. 

To be honest, the structure  of that survey would need examining.  As Hugo says with stats, you can get any answers you want from a survey, depending on how you ask the questions.