Reform strongly predicted to win Barnsley North and Barnsley South

Well Labour have promised to address/sort it, let’s hope that whatever they do it has an impact. Therefore it begs the question, why do people vote for Reform if that is their main issue?

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20... and,parliament's spending watchdog has found.

Hotels 46 million cheaper than barracks and barges

 

There's been a lot of mention about percentages of people who voted reform and those who didn't vote but would have voted reform if they had.
It made me wonder what percentage of Barnsley families have relatives who gave their life in the fight against fascism during the war. I wonder what they'd think if they could see their families now voting for the same type
of people they died fighting. Make no mistake, UKIP, Brexit party and Reform all crawl from under the same rock, and it's marked FASCIST.

 

It always makes me wonder why people think that its ok to attribute a single motive to the many millions people who fought in a war. No doubt many Germans fought because they believed whole hearted in the mission, no doubt many didn't think much about it, not everyone thinks deeply about everything. Same for those who fought on the Allies side - there was a very strong anti-war sentiment and the general consensus seemed to be ok with Hitler taking over bits of Europe - until they weren't, and many were happy for Germany and Russia to fight it out amongst themselves. This idea that everyone was fighting for some noble cause that would be invoked 70 years later strikes me as wrong. We should always be wary of looking back in history and assigning roles based on present norms and hindsight.

 

I don’t think either figure is good. Do you?

 

a functional government might address it instead of pandering to the right wing bigots. The most vulnerable need looking after not demonizing

 

what would be a good answer? Give the poor buggers amnesty and let them all stop here and clear the immigration system. It would be more cost effective to give them all national insurance cards and let them get to work to support their own families, rather than endlessly prevent them from working, driving, etc.

 

Why is querying 8-40 million pound a day of taxpayer spending being a bigot? So are these people the most vulnerable and how should they be looked after?

Allowing them to be able to work sooner seems a better option?

 

Seems like a decent answer. What are the pros and cons of such an undertaking?

 

I don’t think you’ve understood me. Immigrants arriving here should be processed fairly, humanly and quickly allowing those to remain who meet whatever criteria is set.

Querying money spent is a dead cat distraction from poor administration. If we had a functioning government who spent money on the correct infrastructure immigrants arriving would be contributing to society quicker rather than being castigated and abused by bigots. Let’s not forget immigration is a net gain to GDP.

 

The pros are we would stop spending whatever it is on housing them indefinitely and save the cost of deporting them. It would free up a lot of government/civil service time which will also either be a cost saving or allow their time to be divested elsewhere.
Cons, we already have a strain on the housing market in terms of affordable housing, but if the government spent the money they save on hotels/barges etc. into building affordable housing that would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Other cons, we've a lot of racist people live in this country who believe that, despite it being a coincidence of geography that they live in this green and pleasant land, England is for the English. They also would rather see foreigners die in the channel than show some compassion.

 

Doesn't surprise me. Have you tried booking a barge holiday?
I have, £1500 a week in a narrowboat, nevermind one o them super wide, super tall things, against under £500 in a premier inn!

 

Another obvious con is it gives a green light to anyone else on the planet who fancies moving here, regardless of their circumstances. Before you offered a blanket amnesty on people already here, you'd need to legally make sure everyone else for ever more couldn't claim the same based on precedent, and you'd need to fix the current processing situation to prevent another backlog from occurring, with an effective mechanism for removing people from the country who's claim is rejected.

 

Oh I agree, but that £46million a year or whatever it was would be better spent on fixing the system moving forward, not propping up a broken system.

 

Do you think that they would all get work or are some here because we are a soft touch when it comes to benefits? A NI number would facilitate this. Let's not forget we have homeless people on the streets - some of which have served in the forces - who dont get such luxuries as a roof over their heads, let alone a NI number - the reason being is that they are likely to be unwanted in the system.

We need to make sure that anyone who comes into the country adds value to the country - as Australia do - whereby worker shortages are addressed - their is no doubt overseas workers have a great value to us but the country is creaking at the seams

 

Agreed, but keeping them in hotels not allowing them to get jobs is costing us more than if we paid them all benefits. If 50% started working it would save us more than 50% of the cost. I can’t accept that the majority of people come solely to claim benefits, although if I was going to be put up in a hotel because there is no proper asylum system I wouldn’t be upset.
Homelessness is also a terrible thing and we ought to be spending money on converting empty commercial units in town centres into bedsits for homeless people with a programme of integrating them back into society.

 

I dont know the figures on it but it seems a fair point. I think most would agree it's a mess and I'm at a loss as to why the decision makers don't do their due diligence on numbers before committing to a program/scheme one way or the other. The migrants could join the strimmer and litter picking clubs that I'd have deployed the unemployed on - they might as well take the weight off the public purse strings!

 

And the homeless. I’m sure many of them would be fairly civic minded if it meant they get 3 meals a day and a roof over their heads. Those that aren’t fit to work can be put into a recovery programme.

 

I agree, surely its cheaper than the figures quoted and would save a fair few man hours in the public sector. I'm all for folk coming across if some value is added somewhere - you'd like to think they'd prefer not to be holed up in a hotel all day every day

 

If I remember right farmers had shortages of fruit and veg pickers etc the other year