Are the Tories toughing up?

[longdogs]

They have been busy over the past couple of days talking tough about immigration. May has said that boat people 'could' be sent back and that the traffickers will be targeted. They have also said they will be negotiating new EU rules so people will have to be earning in the UK for four years before they can claim tax credits and child benefits.

So my question is:

Is this the direction the government really wanted to go all along but couldn't because they had the 'Limps' biting at their ankles: Or is it just more hot air politics, brought about by the popularity of UKIP?

My guess is the latter. I remember when they 'won' the 2010 election, CaMoron was spouting all the things the electorate wanted to hear for a couple of weeks only to be forgotten.

 

[JBR]

They have also said they will be negotiating new EU rules

They keep saying that, don't they?
And the EU mandarins keep saying they won't!

 

[JBR]

Is this the direction the government really wanted to go all along but couldn't because they had the 'Limps' biting at their ankles: Or is it just more hot air politics, brought about by the popularity of UKIP?

I think it's both.

The Limp Dems are basically left wing and would never have created a productive government alongside the Conservatives. Two different parties pulling in opposite directions.

UKIP caused changes of policy in both Conservative and Labour parties before they had even gained a single seat so it could be said that, despite having only one MP, we four million voters (equivalent to the entire population of Scotland!) have at least had some effect.

 

[CylonRaider]

They have also said they will be negotiating new EU rules so people will have to be earning in the UK for four years before they can claim tax credits and child benefits.

The Jocks are not happy about it !!

I did a "Glasgow Changeover" with the Sweaty Socks at Lymm t'other night and they told me "They" have learned ways to get benefits. (They being immigrants)

Apparently they are lent a van and they go scrap collecting. When they weigh it in they ask for a receipt and promptly go straight to the benefits office.

They then show them the receipt and say they are self employed but can't get enough work to survive. The receipt is all the proof of self employment they need and are then issued with an N.I. number and all the benefits they are entitled to. ( 8 kids back "home")

Don't shoot the messenger. Find out if it's true !!

 

[JBR]

The only answer is to stop them coming in, and the only way to achieve that is to leave the EU.

This message has largely fallen on deaf ears for years now.
Eventually, when things have become worse, the Europhiles will be forced to admit they were wrong and will have to shoulder the blame for our forthcoming woes.

 

[big-all]

despite having only one MP, we four million voters (equivalent to the entire population of Scotland!) have at least had some effect.

scotland 5.3m
ukip 3.9
nearly but not quite

 

[jockscott]

I can't see any reason why economic migrants are allowed to claim such benefits straight away. Makes absolutely no sense. They have contributed nothing to the economy, yet claim benefits almost straight away. Our chancellor might as well give them the keys to the bloody treasury vaults and let them get on with depleting the countries money.

 

[longdogs]

They have also said they will be negotiating new EU rules so people will have to be earning in the UK for four years before they can claim tax credits and child benefits.

The Jocks are not happy about it !!

I did a "Glasgow Changeover" with the Sweaty Socks at Lymm t'other night and they told me "They" have learned ways to get benefits. (They being immigrants)

Apparently they are lent a van and they go scrap collecting. When they weigh it in they ask for a receipt and promptly go straight to the benefits office.

They then show them the receipt and say they are self employed but can't get enough work to survive. The receipt is all the proof of self employment they need and are then issued with an N.I. number and all the benefits they are entitled to. ( 8 kids back "home")

Don't shoot the messenger. Find out if it's true !!

Interesting! but not surprising.

 

[JBR]

despite having only one MP, we four million voters (equivalent to the entire population of Scotland!) have at least had some effect.

scotland 5.3m
ukip 3.9
nearly but not quite

Splitting hairs!

Does that 5.3 million include all the illegal immigrants?

 

[jeds]

despite having only one MP, we four million voters (equivalent to the entire population of Scotland!) have at least had some effect.

scotland 5.3m
ukip 3.9
nearly but not quite

You are comparing apples with pears. There may be 5.3million people in Scotland but only 1.4million voted for the SNP. So the true comparison is:

SNP 1.4million (56 MPs)
UKIP 3.9million (1 MP)

 

[Davidel]

SNP 1.4million (56 MPs)
UKIP 3.9million (1 MP)

A more accurate comparison would be:

Of the 650 parliamentary seats:

UKIP contested 624 seats = 6250 votes per seat
SNP contested 69 seats = 20289 votes per seat

Effectively the SNP gained just over 50% of the combined votes cast in the seats they contested.

UKIPs vote, though large, was severely diluted. They did come second in 90 of the of those 624 though, you could argue that a tighter concerted effort in the key marginal targets may have reaped a better reward. PR or AV would have also have yielded UKIP significantly more seats.

In this case FPTP shows its disadvantages, unfortunately the AV referendum defeat in 2011 put paid to that changing any time soon.

 

[big-all]

despite having only one MP, we four million voters (equivalent to the entire population of Scotland!) have at least had some effect.

scotland 5.3m
ukip 3.9
nearly but not quite

You are comparing apples with pears. There may be 5.3million people in Scotland but only 1.4million voted for the SNP. So the true comparison is:

SNP 1.4million (56 MPs)
UKIP 3.9million (1 MP)

apples and pairs again then

ukip are voters as in 18 plus
scottish population is everyone so i assume 20-25% are illegible to vote so maybe thats where the original 4m came from

 

[JBR]

In this case FPTP shows its disadvantages, unfortunately the AV referendum defeat in 2011 put paid to that changing any time soon.

Indeed. Two things, though.

Firstly, AV is not the same as PR. PR would certainly have made a big difference to UKIP's success.

You must, by now, have read Joe's accusations that I voted FOR AV and said so on here. Despite repeated requests for evidence to support his accusations, I am still waiting.
Incidentally, not only did I not vote for AV, I didn't vote at all as I was unaware of the proposal at the time.

 

[Micilin]

SNP 1.4million (56 MPs)
UKIP 3.9million (1 MP)

A more accurate comparison would be:

Of the 650 parliamentary seats:

UKIP contested 624 seats = 6250 votes per seat
SNP contested 69 seats = 20289 votes per seat

Effectively the SNP gained just over 50% of the combined votes cast in the seats they contested.

UKIPs vote, though large, was severely diluted. They did come second in 90 of the of those 624 though, you could argue that a tighter concerted effort in the key marginal targets may have reaped a better reward. PR or AV would have also have yielded UKIP significantly more seats.

In this case FPTP shows its disadvantages, unfortunately the AV referendum defeat in 2011 put paid to that changing any time soon.

That's a much better illustration than the raw numbers.

It's also a good argument for STV which would give UKIP seats more in proportion to their vote share; but that would mean too much re shaping of constituencies.

I think UKIP aren't worth a single vote myself, but a democracy should reflect voter intentions better than FPTP does.

It's a hangover ,IMO, from the begrudging enfranchisement of the plebeians by the elite, in order to maintain the status quo rather than reflect the will of the electorate!

 

[mark vincent]

All the the Tories talk of denying migrants benefits is a lot of hot air, for a start if migrants are required to pay the same rate of National insurance, income tax, VAT, fuel tax ect. as every one else then how can the government turn round and say to a migrant ok you have to pay the same taxes as us but you cant have the same level of benefits simply because you are of a different nationality, that would be blatant discrimination.

A better system as proposed by UKIP would be that any prospective migrant would be required to have their own unemployment and health insurance for which they could claim tax relief, after 5 years they could be considered for full access to the social security system.