Cameron Shaming the Country

Have fun, you two!

You sound a very angry and bitter person gg, I feel sorry for you.

That would be kind if I were angry and bitter nigglynellie but I am not. Very disappointed in the level of some people's view of what it is important to discuss and, as in this case, the need to descend into personal abuse . I am sure one of GNs rules is, basically, no personal remarks. This does seem to be far away from the poor refugees but you and others appear to find it a more important topic and, as I said, I will continue to reply.

Actually, Gracesgran, the GN rule is 'no personal attacks', which is slightly different. If what you said had been true, quite a few of us on this thread would have had cause to complain about your own 'personal remarks' about us!

A few of us were actually attempting to continue the thread along its original lines earlier today, Gracesgran, but you insisted on carping. The continuation of this ridiculous saga is down to you alone.

If, as you say, it is down to me Ana then it will stop as all I am doing is replying. I too want to continue the discussion. Oh yes, I started it didn't I and that was because I wanted to see what people had to say about it.

Actually, Gracesgran, the GN rule is 'no personal attacks', which is slightly different. If what you said had been true, quite a few of us on this thread would have had cause to complain about your own 'personal remarks' about us!

You are obviously intent on continuing this Ana so we may as well see your evidence.

Sorry Jen but not only has this thread gone off topic but the "off topic" bit seems all a few posters seem prepared to discuss.

"The arguments used against accepting and housing refugees often elide with the arguments against taking action to solve the housing crisis. A tongue-in-cheek petition to house 100,000 refugees in some of the 80,000 holiday homes in Wales makes the point that Britain is far from full, but that too much space and power lands in the laps of the rich. In fact, there??s plenty of space to build more homes and house more people. "

In the same article it says that only 3% of land is built on in the UK.
I found that quite surprising.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/11/merkel-ugly-german-history

This is why Germany is acting in a more humanitarian way than the UK.
Why can't we be like them?
Actually, many of us are. What I really mean is why can't Cameron be more like Merkel?

Yes please, give them the holiday homes in Wales . Jen much of the land is owned by the queen and aristocracy . Charles could give his holiday home in Wales to the refugees , he never stays there

Why can't Cameron dig deep and see if he has a shred of humanity within

I do think a sudden influx of refugees will put pressure on already pressurised resources but there is more than one answer to the problem and it doesn't have to be - don't let them in. We could provide the resources. I had to smile as the holiday homes suggestion Jen.

It comes back to the Conservatives putting in purely ideologically driven austerity and not growing ourselves out of the low waged, insecure working practices, low housing priority and poor infrastructure. If people feel scarcities and insecurities all around them it is not surprising that many have been against helping the refugees until recently. If only they could see that these problems have been made by design.

www.change.org/p/welsh-government-use-emergency-powers-to-house-100-000-refugees-in-unused-holiday-homes#petition-letter

I think 3% of land is quite a simplistic way of looking at it as we have some areas that are very built up and some with a scarcity of population. There was something on More or Less today about how they would calculate a reasonable number for us to take and it had more parameters in it. It included, I think, average income and a couple of other things. It still came out that we were far away from doing our bit. If I can I will listen to it again.

durhamjen - thanks for link.

I agree about the 3%, Gracesgran. I put it on because I was surprised. The way that people complain about not going into the greenbelt, you would think it much more than that.

The greenbelt is comparatively new Jen. I think people see it as having been here forever but it really only came into being in the late 1940s.

It is just a mechanism for preventing urban sprawl - it's failed in many places and it would possibly be better to overhaul the whole system. I'm not keen to over-build but it would be better to plan knowing what we were doing instead of taking a bite out here and another one there.

One of the reasons the estate planned behind our houses was because it was a large estate taking over three fields and would have been able to be seen from any direction you came into the village, a real blot on the landscape. That and the flooding problem, and the fact the schools are already full, and there are no jobs, so it would mean extra commuting. I don't think greenbelt was actually mentioned.
The builders were desperate enough to mention the village bus as being able to take people home or to work; they even gave it a number, which it has never had. It's a minibus/taxi that runs weekday mornings and the villagers are always running coffee mornings etc. to keep it going.

That doesn't sound good Jen. I know our council is having real problems with working out where to build and seem to want to just throw up another huge estate on the side of the nearest town which will basically join up with an already huge estate there. It's amazing how often they turn down affordable housing in the more expensive parts of the town though. The big problem always seem to be the lack of infrastructure and the promise of such things as schools which do not materialise.

My thoughts about actually reassessing the Green belt is that you could build new towns and new villages with all the infrastructure built first. It is almost as if it encourages "urban sprawl" currently.

I admit to only reading this last page here so apologies if I repeat things already said.
If you go into many areas of the UK you will see houses boarded up, left empty and unloved etc. - it cannot be too difficult to find the owners of these properties and give them so long to get the house back into a liveable state or have it requisitioned and the work done by Councils or similar and rented out to families on the waiting list etc. Within a few years there would be less people living in very unsavoury conditions and less on the waiting lists. I also think that unscrupulous landlords who rent unsafe houses etc should also face some form of requisitioning. I saw on TV last week that there appears to be some sort of requirement for landlords to gain a certificate etc -- only caught a glimpse of Homes Under the Hammer and saw no details.

There is no moral high ground in encouraging illegal immigration. My son worked at the Syrian Camps. It is the poor, the old, the orphans, the sick and the women who get left behind with dwindling resources Meanwhile this trade, because that is what it is, lines the pockets of criminals and ISIS. If we want to reduce suffering we need to help finance countries like Jordan who are currently trying to maintain thousands of Syrians. These are fairly poor countries. Germany meanwhile has a declining population and cherry picks the most qualified refugees, before insisting other countries take the rest. Apparent largess which is not quite so altruistic, particularly when they are putting such a strain on receiving countries in the EU who are so much poorer. When making a decision about the best way to help we need to consider the overall picture, not just have a knee jerk reaction aimed at salving our conscience without thinking through the consequences. A large influx of refugees will have a destabilising effect on the receiving countries, not least on the climate for immigrants who are already here.THINK before engaging in group think and don't be naive. Before anyone gets too self righteous then consider the following links.

www.spiegel.de/international/europe/german-asylum-system-stretches-to-breaking-point-a-1052546.html

Or for a UK perspective www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34172729

I get irritated by self righteous people who think they have a monopoly on morality. Acting in a moral way requires we think about the outcomes of our actions in a meaningful way and consider both short and long term best interests, not just in an individual way but for society at large. Sometimes it requires than we see further than the end of our noses and it is far braver to speak up when you may be saying uncomfortable truths that may not go with the flow in the media. If opinion polls are to be believed I am not alone in having reservations. Meanwhile we should all ensure our country continues to help financially, and consider who is gaining from an outpouring of indignation. Unfortunately children die every day all over the world. Being an ethical person means we value all life equally, not just when it is part of a bandwagon.

I don't see it as a "bandwagon" - it is an international crisis, and people are rightly concerned.

The use of the word "self-righteous" to describe those who express their concern and suggest solutions that you do not agree with is a bit suspect.

I do not think people are being self-righteous. On several posts I have said that taking in more refugees will bring problems, but that does not mean we should not do it. We need to find ways round these problems as we did at the end of WW2. Pumping money in, as happened with crises like Biafra, is not sufficient.

And saying - letting in the refugees would be a threat to our standard of living is valuing life equally ?

I thought chickenbrain said some interesting and thought-provoking things. S/he obviously has information direct from the front line in a way that we, who only know what the media are feeding us, do not. No point in trying to score points or disagree about words like 'selfrighteous'. Deeds count. Lets try to get them right before emotional knee jerk reactions lead inadvertently into making things worse.

Well said Chickenbrain2009 I agree with you 100%.

excellent post Chicken, you say what a lot of people are thinking.