This Is Controversial

Controversially the UK is once again defending their rights to control their own boarders against mounting pressure to conform to the wishes of the EU.

This time the EU are arguing that the UK have no right to limit the rights of Romanian and Bulgarian citizens who wish to go to the UK to; work, to be housed, to have access to education, benefits and health care services.

Under EU law the UK is obliged to restrict its restrictions on immigration; the doors of the UK should not have to be prized open by all who wish to go and live there.

However there are restrictions currently in place; 29 million Romanian and Bulgarian workers have not been granted free access to live and work within the UK. These restrictions are due to expire in 2014, and now the renewal of this immigration policy is under debate; should controls against these workers wanting to go to the UK be continued or scraped??

Well, the UK Government, and a portion of the public aren’t so sure they should open the doors to the UK that wide, quite so soon. PR campaigns are even being considered by the UK Government to dissuade people from wanting to go to the UK to live and work.

There is a fear that millions of migrant workers will flood into the UK, this has prompted deep concerns for the country.

However, this is not a new argument though. It is one that has been raging in many formats since the beginning of the EU and even before that. It seems that the UK have always been rebuked for their ‘closed’ attitude toward welcoming foreign workers. Yet, since history was first documented people have come to live in the UK as migrant workers; in essence it is nothing new for the UK.

So what makes this situation different?

What is the truth behind all these restrictions, and why is it that people want to see them continue???

Why are the UK Government, and a portion of the UK public against opening the ‘flood gates’ (so to speak) to the whole of the EU???

Well immigration is, as always, a complex topic littered with speculation. The speculation concerns the exact numbers of immigrant workers who will decide to come to the UK. People wonder what this influx of immigration will bring about for the UK; how will it affect the economy and society at this moment in time.

There is a fear too; that the UK will flounder as a consequence of mass immigration. A fear that also expressing concerns over large scale immigration from one country to another would result in condemnation, and misinterpretation.

With David Cameron talking about a referendum relating to how the UK public view the UK’s future in the EU; it is perhaps quite pertinent that these new immigration arguments correspond with claims over EU manipulation and control.

Everyone is wondering just how far the UK are willing to push their individual idea about immigration. Will stand alone or merely just concede to what the EU want in the end?

So, we are now getting to the point of the real controversy; racism.

A word so often applied when immigration is discussed, and likely to be labelled upon anyone raising their voices against unregulated immigration.

Yet, race or being prejudiced against people isn’t necessarily the reason the UK are voicing opposition towards immigration. It isn’t immigration they are against per se, but the unrestricted version of this, one without controls. At the end of the day we are all subject to controls when we travel or go to live in another country; none of us are completely free to wander as we wish. So, removing controls or being told to remove the controls could be seen as unknown territory. There is always a chance that with any proposed changes to any policies, there will be unseen consequences or outcomes. In reaction to change these unknown elements are thought through thoroughly and discussed, before anything new is ever implemented.

Is this reaction racism at play, or merely politics – manoeuvring to achieve the best deal? 

Racism regarding UK immigration controls cannot be fully proven, unless you are willing to consider the rhetoric of any UK National party; which I AM NOT GOING TO, AS THEY TALK ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

The UK might be be criticised as a country selfishly looking after its own business or interests, by denying loosening its immigration controls. The UK could be seen as ignoring the needs and rights of other EU countries and their people. Yet, there are fears in the UK that with added pressures to take more migrant workers, the UK economy will crash into obscurity, and financial ruin will follow.

How can such a tiny island stay afloat?

The UK is currently suffering cuts to its health, education and public service budgets (including the police force and teachers). The economy isn’t flush; there are hundreds of thousands homeless upon the streets, 3 million people are unemployed and more being made redundant weekly it seems; people are basically struggling to pay their way and put food on the table. In fact figures show that as long ago as 2008/2009 13.5 million people were actually living below the low income threshold – which is under £300 a week (according to poverty.org.uk).

In truth the UK doesn’t have endless resources, available land for new homes, and unlimited access to services, plenty of money or jobs for everyone. It doesn’t have enough of those things for the citizens it already has. The UK needs improving for sure, and overloading it with more weight it cannot carry won’t help.

So why would anyone want to come to an already struggling country to work and live?

If people want to leave their own countries en masse in favour of any other EU country, then surely the issue is with their country of origin??? Surely that should be addressed by the EU, as there must be something fundamentally amiss in that country? Something which is failing their citizens, and forcing them to feel they have to leave to seek a better life elsewhere in the EU?

Should the UK or any other country feel obliged to take in immigrant workers from other EU countries???

Is it the UK or any other countries responsibility to do so?????

Might seem controversial to ask these questions, and yet, this is what people are saying behind closed doors. 

I don’t claim to have any of the answers – have you?

The UK has plenty of issues that need to be addressed, so, I ask again; what can the UK offer to any people from any other country, when it has so many issues of its own?

If people leave their home countries in search of a better life, that is fine and totally expected; but what better life do people expect to find in the UK?? What freedoms, incentives and privileges do other countries think the UK has to offer them that their country of origin doesn’t??

Resettling in any country where people can gain access to public services, jobs, a benefit system, a criminal prosecution service, to education, to better housing and to health care; has to be a good thing and appealing. The UK like many EU countries has all of these on offer for its citizens.

BUT,  not every country does, or if they do, these services aren’t always to the same standard as they might be in the UK.

So maybe it is these things that offers hope to people who wish to go to the UK to live??

Yet, now maybe not the best time to move anywhere within the EU, as things aren’t as good in every country as perhaps they once were. Consequently, many countries it maybe considering their own needs first, and not considering allowing more people into their countries. At this moment in time, in this economic climate, surely that is quite normal, sensible and healthy?!

Perhaps it is a case of sustain and redevelop what you already have??? Don’t gamble and don’t risk any more  or face upsetting the fine balance and making things worse for those already living in the country???

Caution around immigration is not only on the UK’s mind, so to see the UK as the enemy on this is unfair.

Other countries have far more stringent immigration policies than the UK, yet, they are not deemed to be doing anything wrong. These countries also consider their own interests, business and economy first and foremost; yet, they aren’t being called selfish and being reprimanded for not helping.

Perhaps now is not the right time to consider being lax over immigration??????????

Yet, no country could deny the benefits they have received from this either, and no one should feel they can’t re-locate to em-better their lives.

So, to sum up then; immigration has always been an issue. It is controversial topic and a tough policy to get right. It is on every countries mind, and in every countries interest to allow and also to ‘vet’. Yet, now it is ever more becoming a thorn in countries and Governments sides – to do is to be damned and to not do is to be damned.

So what are the options????

OPINIONS PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

I was just wondering what you think about immigration????

Has any country got immigration policy right????

Can there ever be a balance achieved???

Is it wrong and selfish to limit immigration???

Are the UK xenophobic????  

Alternatively; is the UK in control their own country, or is it the EU in control?

Why can’t the UK call its own shots??  

Why does the EU insist in ‘putting their fingers’ in the UK’s pie?? Reprimanding the UK for looking after itself, just exactly like other EU countries do.

YOU TELL ME……………….

Check out links below from UK media for further reading on this topic:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9835068/50000-children-overseas-getting-child-benefit-and-tax-credit-Treasury-admits.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/romanian-beggars-flooding-london-7675625.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8707490/Gang-of-Romanian-gipsy-squatters-targeted-several-houses.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/more-women-forced-into-slavery-after-change-to-immigration-law-8478998.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9840059/Why-Poles-love-coming-to-Britain.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom_since_1922

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_in_the_United_Kingdom

Is Democracy DEAD???

 

I have been looking at UK based political opinion websites recently, where, not surprisingly David Cameron has been dished his fair share of hate.

Yet, I am left wondering; if no-one trusts Cameron, then who do they trust?? Not one person ever answers this question………….

I mean aren’t ALL political parties and politicians the same; full of empty promises??

Yet, to balance the argument out here a bit; the UK was in a pretty poor state when this coalition Government inherited it. No-one, not even David Cameron can be expected to work miracles over night, any change WILL take time.

I am not a ‘fan’ per se of any politician though, but I can see that at this moment whatever is done or not done will cause uproar.

So perhaps then their failings, like all the others before them is not their party rhetoric or their policies, but that they aren’t consulting with their electorate AT ALL.

Isn’t that what politics is though, consultation and representing the electorate?

Politicians by nature seem to impose what they think are great solutions, leaving us all out in the wilderness, alienated from the political sphere.

We are left wondering what is this all about?

Don’t WE the people count?

Where is TRUE democracy, if it ever existed, gone?

Maybe in the next general election they should include a box on the ballot form stating;
‘I ABSTAIN FROM VOTING’ – I wonder how many people in the UK would tick this box?

ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE MOST WELCOME PEOPLE! Please let me know YOUR thoughts……..

What do YOU think about the place politics holds in today’s society.

Has politics lost it’s direction?

Are we all being ignored by the bureaucratic processes??

IS DEMOCRACY DEAD???????????????

You TELL me!

 

*Above pic from : http://bharathin.blogspot.com.es

Why Talk Politics??

 

Does this resonate with anyone else???

 

 

The Unemployed; An Easy Target?

The Tory Government are once again on the war path, seems that once they have the bit in-between their teeth they are unable to let it go!

Unemployment benefits and the unemployed; these are the Tories NEW official target now. These are the new scourge of UK society.

At last the Tories have stumbled upon a policy they obviously believe will bring the UK people firmly back on their side, and now they won’t stop the cull. Any policy that outlines how to cut these benefits, how to reduce them, minimise them, and how to rid the country of the unemployed is fair game to them.

Are these policies a good idea???

I have mentioned in many other posts that there has been a need to reform the benefit system in the UK for LONG while. Plenty of taxpayers money has been going into the hands of recipients who don’t deserve it; I have direct experience with this type of work, so I was used to witnessing this inequity everyday. I was always infuriated by how genuinely in need people lost out under the system’s rules! However, the new Tory Manifesto regarding the latest proposed measures is a step too far, or maybe a step backwards.

The Tories not only want to cut benefits for people living North of London, but also want to target claimants who are classed as overweight too.

The reasons behind this new proposal??

People living North of London have a lower cost of living; which is the worst excuse for cutting a benefit I have ever heard. Poverty is still a factor whether you live in London or not! Also, those who are overweight will have to abide by their Doctors rule and loose weight to be able to continue claiming a benefit. The overweight claimants have to comply with what is deemed healthy, so not to drain the NHS or other UK support systems of precious resources; but what about the bureaucracy that currently drains the NHS of resources? Will that be dealt with too, as that squanders the money before any patients are even seen!

This Tory manifesto has other proposals too; axing the retirement age and lengthening the school day by up to three hours. Great, so when can a hard working person claim their much deserved pension? Also, they struggle to keep kids in school now, so good luck with applying those extra hours to the day!

This whole ‘Manifesto’ screams that the Tories are not willing enough to deal with the whole rotten picture, and the core of the problems. It seems the Tories have become lazy, and are now opting to target pockets of people to vent their wrath upon (the scapegoats of UK society); in a hope this will save them money! How wrong could they be?!

How about actually adopting a comprehensive package to solve unemployment in the UK, rather than one based on prejudices and nonsense?

One where; businesses are encouraged and job opportunities are actually produced. Where the actual advertising of jobs is given back to the Job Centres, and taken away from the grasping and ‘closed shop’ employment agencies that hold on to them all now. Where retraining is available to all ages, and not just for the over 50’s and under 24’s. Where education is advocated too, and not just in the form of Vocational training. Where Maths and English skills are valued and encouraged; I have seen countless of people who are illiterate being told it doesn’t matter by the Job Centre, when clearly it does! Where regional development policies are advocated; local councils and agencies work together to seek a tailored solution to the myriad of problems which afflict areas suffering from the worst and persistent unemployment! Where help is agreed which is actually required and needed; instead of cutting funds, invest into communities. How about also thinking about how to help other regions other than merely London!

As far as cutting benefits for the overweight go, well, I have never heard anything so ridiculous! This one factor alone is far from a cut and dry issue. Who is classed as overweight? Anyone without a perfect BMI and that is over 60% of the UK population, if not more. Who classes you as overweight? Your Doctor, therefore people will immediately boycott going to their GP. This will stack up serious health issues over a fear that anyone overweight, and claiming a benefit, will now be a GP’s target. If they don’t dance to their GP’s tune they won’t be eligible to claim a benefit they require to survive upon! Also, NOT every person who is overweight is on a benefit, nor is every person who is overweight work shy!

Is this judgemental nonsense what the Tories want to include in a serious political policy? What is the next step here?? I didn’t realise the UK would be so happy to live in a ‘police’ state! One final thing to consider is that there are plenty of people working, and also in Government jobs who are overweight too; so what is the proposal for them??

I know benefits and unemployment are difficult situations to remedy, and the solutions are not easy. Yet, nothing will be easy when those issues have been left to languish so long without attention. If the Government are going to tackle the issues and problems, then, do it right or don’t bother! Otherwise, the UK will be left with more follies hampering it’s progress, and more problems to rectify in the future.

Recession? You Need Free Market Principles.

The many strands of recession

This post comes as a direct response to a ‘conversation’ I had with another person regarding recession, current economic climate and political solutions to Government debt and failings.

My intention is not to appear biased in favour of UK political preferences or experiences. I just want to raise the topics that were initially put to me, and answer with my thought on them. So, here is the basis of the initial conversation:

‘Free Market Principles (*description located at the bottom of the post) will save the US from falling into the same problems as Europe and the UK now face’.

I have been wondering just how many of these principles, and in what measure, are actually already adopted in countries all over the globe? Could it be that countries already going through recession ignored these principles and therefore floundered? Could these principles alone be the answer to and solution for future recessions? Are a set of inflexible principles capable of such a feat? Are reasons for recession so ‘cut and dry’?

Well, the person who argued the merits of Free Market Principles used certain failings as a measuring tool to highlight what had brought about recession; unemployment, Government debt, taxing the rich, ‘big Government’ as opposed to limited Government, and the over reliance on grand scale public welfare or social welfare policies classed as the ‘Nanny State’.

Now there are issues which can be debated.

Those of you, who may read my blog, you might be already familiar with my take on the UK Government and welfare system – NHS and state benefits. See below for further links:
Poverty In The UK
The UK Welfare State
The Declining Health Of The NHS

These systems are not perfect, and I will be the first to admit that, but like anything there is more to the issues than may initially appear. That is why no issues which any country or Government face at the moment can be so easily deemed a failure or because of recession. The background information for that failure should be first discussed first.

Let me also add, no country is perfect and neither are ANY Governments. There are many mistakes made, and many issues then created as a result of bad policies or decisions.

On to my thoughts:

I am not going to break down exactly how Free Market Principles apply or should apply. As I mentioned earlier I want to see behind the reasons for failures, to talk about the ‘tools’ used as a measure of failure.

Government Debt:

Initially I question the sweeping generalisation of Government debt as a simple cause for recession. Some nations like the UK for example have had to have debt to survive 2 world wars. Without debt the country would never have scraped through such detrimental hardships brought about by the wars.

Factors that lead to any Government debt are a ‘chicken and an egg’ scenario; many issues, like those the UK faced in the war eras have been running on since that time without being fixed. Deep flaws in policies and decisions have occurred as Government has grown and changed its form over the years. The welfare State for example has its very origins in the aftermath of the 2nd World War, and since then it has out grown its initial remit, but this change has never been fully represented in the entity it has now become (I will discuss this later). Hence, issues linking to failure.

In most countries there will be hidden issues, plastered over cracks that once recession hits them, they become highlighted and exasperated; these cracks then become huge holes, for example issues with unemployment. These issues may have been left lingering until a recession hits; when a country or Government is under the most scrutiny, then the issues have to be seen to be dealt with, then they gain attention.

Factors for unemployment do include going through a recession:

Yes, but other factors can lead to the final breaking point. Rapid changes in technology, disability, changes in business, changes in supply and demand, attitude towards employers, willingness to work, immigration, climate change, migration, perception of employees, employee values, discriminating factors in the place of work (may include discrimination on the basis of age, class, ethnicity, colour and race) and ability to look for employment all effect the figures initially before any recession begins.

Taxation is never a favourable topic:

Raising taxes is not especially popular either, and when the wealthy of the country are going to be effected, then that is seen as damn right outrageous. I will bring in France here: French Prime Minister has said there will be a 75% tax rate for people earning more than 1m Euros.

Now I don’t necessarily agree with the tax level France is opting for, but people should be taxed according to what they earn. Wealthier people shouldn’t have a free pass just because they bring ‘wealth’ into the country, because so does everyone who works and contributes to the economy of the country. It is merely that the wealthy have more money to be taxed or contribute to a country with, but they are part of the country too. The ordinary working person is affected more by fluctuations in tax during recession; on their salary and goods, and it is them who are generally Struggling To Make Ends Meet

Perhaps France opted for this tax increase for the wealthy as they didn’t wish to impose harsh cuts on public services that would affect the whole country. Look at the UK and the ‘Geddes Axe’; recommended slashing government spending in precisely the way today’s believers in ‘expansionary austerity’ recommend in time of rescission. Did it work for the UK in the 1920’s, no and consequently this spiralled UK’s debt levels. Pre First World War debt levels weren’t attained again until 1990. So cutting Government public spending isn’t always the answer.

Public services are a drain in times of recession though:

Well they have been a drain for years and why, well there are complex reasons. Let me concentrate on the UK’s NHS. This system has evolved over the years; peoples changing lifestyles, higher populations, larger catchment areas, more diagnoses of illnesses before unrecognised, Doctors running National Health and Private surgeries which clash, not enough medical staff, privatisation of the 1980’s, rising wages, Primary Care Trusts and the amount of ‘pen pushing’ bureaucrats hampering Government money being spent where it needs to be. In the UK ‘big Government’ as opposed to the limited version is not to blame for the failings, but rather that Government hasn’t enough of a hold and control over proceedings. They haven’t a clue what is going, and therefore the whole system has become lax, un-scrutinized and out of control. It is a lack of grasping the changes and implementing a policy that reflects this that causes the trouble, not recession.

The NHS is not perfect, but again neither is for example the US system, and the US isn’t in a recession like the UK. People in the US can’t afford insurance (30 million of them to be precise). So, how can limited Government eradicate any of these issues for any country?

OK let’s talk about who likes Free Market Principles.

Well, the conservatives who claim to have a profound love of them have no use for them; professing fealty to the markets is only a rhetorical strategy. Some would say they favour policies that distort the market in such a way that income and wealth flows to those at the top, but given that most people who cast votes in elections are not among that rarefied few, they have no desire to defend those policies on their merits. So, do they have a place in a society where the majority struggle to live??

But big Government ruins the countries wealth:

I feel a Government needs to know what is going on in their country, not be blind to it (I argue they are blind enough). It is a Governments duty to ensure its citizens when in need, receive help in the form of public services. They are there to respond to needs or why else do we elect them? What is the need for Government per se if they have no role in the country they govern?

I think everyone should be ensured they have a slice of the cake in the 21st century, even if it is a small slice, better than starving to death under the premise of ‘we can’t intervene we are a limited Government’.

People should not be allowed to flounder and disappear just like dust under a carpet; just because they aren’t a member of the ‘select committee’ (the wealthy) in society.

Boom and bust is worse under principles advocating intervention:

Well maybe, but then under a limited Government where there is no intervention is anything truly invested in; anything other than protecting and encouraging wealth? Pursuit of wealth above public needs can be detrimental to a flourishing society, as it reflects and encourages only a certain percentage of people and people’s lives. Not everyone can be wealthy, not everyone’s lives run smoothly.
I for one don’t want a return to a Dickensian way of life, I think I prefer intervention.

*Free Market Principles:
Individual Rights, Limited Government, Equal Justice Under Law, Spontaneous Order, Private Ownership, Subsidiary and the Golden Rule of honesty. Yet I am not going to focus on whether or not these principles, word for word, do impact and can solve recession. Instead I am going to think about reasons

Another Day Another Strike

‘Se Vende’ or For Sale – pertinent sign to denote how staff feel about proposals

Regional Government in Madrid performed an unexpected back track on their plans to reform the structure and function of La Princesa hospital in the capital.

On October 31, regional Popular Party (PP) premier Ignacio González announced that the pioneering research hospital, which has stood for more than 150 years, would be turned into a specialist centre for the treatment of over 75’s only.

This was a shock, considering La Princesa is my local hospital. Also upon visiting there I couldn’t quite believe how busy the place was; it is not as though the services it provides the community aren’t sorely needed. Without treating adults of all ages, where else would the patients go? Surely another hospital couldn’t cope with stresses and strains of extra people to attend to, not to mention to services that would be lost to the community if La Princesa was made ‘redundant’ of its current functions.

The reason for La Princesa’s importance in my local area is that it offers the community 40 specialist treatments, which include; brain surgery, facial reconstruction surgery, and thoracic and cardiac treatments. Also, the population it serves exceeds a quarter of a million (just within its catchment area).

La Princesa is an important piece of the public service jigsaw. A large ‘player’ to try and maim without backlash.

This Government has proposed health cuts previously, and they didn’t go down well with the populace either; so what were they thinking? Well, they they haven’t been obviously as it seems a panicked move to quickly ‘save money’. A false economy in the long run though, with more people unemployed, less health care, more illness and strained services; kind of like cutting of your nose to spite your face.

If the Government had listened at all to the messages of the previous strikes and protests, they would have realised and taken seriously how their electorate felt about such cuts. Yet, they haven’t. So, on the 16th November I was out and about in the evening, and managed to witness another massive protest carried out by the staff and patients of La Princesa. It was moving to watch.

The people were obviously frightened that the hospital would close; losing the services it provides and lose staff. Health care is a vital public services, and public services in any recession are essential for the life blood of the country and the Government. To meddle without good cause will create havoc in the community, and soon make any political party unfavourable. It seems ridiculous to merely chop away in such a careless fashion at a service much required.

Crying for La Princesa

There has even been a petition gained of over 200,000 signatures, one signatory was Madrid’s Mayor Ana Botella. Showing how far the discontent reaches with Government proposals.

From the retaliation of the community, and the hospital staff, PP representatives of the Madrid region’s health department met with The Hospital Workers’ Committee. Funnily enough after this there was a backtrack on the original scheme to curtail La Princesa’s range of services. A concord was reached that the hospital will retain its current status, and continue to treat adults of all ages, and the teaching and investigation it performs too.

Labour unions however remain sceptical and continue to accuse the regional government of acquiescing to private businesses. Allowing private companies free rein to manage the hospitals, although the buildings are being constructed with public money.

These fears have credence as premier Ignacio González proposals already highlight; administration of six recently built hospitals will be soon tendered out to the private sector. More saving money, yes, that and more cuts to the budget. Planned healthcare spending in the region for next year has been cut by seven percent (which is roughly 45% of the budget for health for next year). So this is indeed another attempt to save money, and repay Spanish debt; but at a cost to health and well-being.

Though there has been a Government opinion ‘turn around’ on La Princesa, protests will continue. The people want this ‘turn around’ to be presented formally and documented in writing.

Does that denote a severe lack of distrust for this ‘Popular Party’ Government (ironic name)? Yes, I think so. I suppose their track record already supersedes their words.

If you like my post, just SHARE it 🙂

Copy Right Notice:
© Bex Houghagen and The Savvy Senorita, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Bex Houghagen and The Savvy Senorita with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.