...was, according to her biography on Wikipedia, the General Secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants from 1982-87.
Good job then, since over a hundred have just landed on her constituency doorstep in Slough.
Even Channel 4 news this evening had an "interview" with one of them who was being put on at council tax payers' expense in a local B&B. When asked where the money was coming from she replied, "Social"!
Mactaggart polled over 17,000 votes at the 2005 General Election, with the second-placed Conservative candidate falling well short with under 10,000.
Wonder how many this little event will cost her?
3 comments:
You appear to be having some trouble with your numbers, AL. The total number of Romanian immigrants to Slough this year is more like 400. Of these, 88 have been identified as unaccompanied children.
It looks like you object to feeding these vulnerable children - at the princely cost of £45 a week. It would be interesting to hear what you would like to do with them instead.
Incidentally, 92% of registering Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants to the UK this year are under the age of 45 - and very few are younger than 18. This of course misses those who come in under the radar, but it looks like they're here to work, not scrounge.
http://redlionpolitics.blogspot.com/
Don't be so naive.
Their parents abandoned them because they knew that someone else would pick up the tab. The British Welfare State thereby encourages irresponsible behaviour.
Britain cannot feed the world, nor is it morally obliged to. If people wish to give of their own money as a charitable donation then they should do so. It is not the State's moral duty or right to steal from citizens of the country in this way.
If you are so concerned, why don't you pay for them all out of your own pocket?
"Their parents abandoned them because they knew that someone else would pick up the tab". That's quite a statement, AL! You advised red lion not to be so naive, perhaps you should not be so cynical! Try this for an alternative perspective:
The vast majority of parents would only give up their children in the direst of circumstances. To merely abandon them at the drop of a hat in order that somebody else will pay the bills is surely the reserve of only the most unscrupulous of parents.
The premise of your argument appears to be that Britain’s welfare state encourages immigration. However, although we have had our welfare state for many decades, large-scale immigration is only a modern phenomenon.
The USA has long been seen as the "land of opportunity" and, as such, has always attracted large numbers of immigrants. Given that the USA's welfare system is hardly generous, these immigrants are enticed by one thing only, opportunity.
I believe a similar thing is happening here. Britain is now seen as Europe's "land of opportunity", having enjoyed a sustained period of economic growth for some years now. Modern Britain is a far cry from the grim Britain of the late 70s and early 80s, which encouraged few immigrants. Britain, and particularly London, is now thriving and it is no surprise that people from other parts of Europe want to come in and have their share of the spoils.
So, perhaps the parents who are sending children over here are doing so in order to release their children from desperate poverty, into a society where they will be exposed to opportunities that they would not have otherwise seen.
Post a Comment