People can claim multiple different types of benefits depending on their circumstances, included in the figures for "benefits claimants" are those receiving the state pension. This whole, "people choose to be on benefits" line at #CPC22 ignores people's needs. 1/
Claiming that everyone who is on benefits is "workshy" ignores the disabled, the elderly, those with childcare needs, as well as the drop in claimants for benefits such as employment allowance. Further cuts to benefits will harm vulnerable people, with no real world benefit. 2/
You see, what happens is that when you reduce benefits you force people into more precarious positions. Among other things that has long-term negative effects on their physical and mental health. 3/
That creates additional costs for public services, such as the NHS. It means declining educational attainment as more children are left in deprived situations, with long term negative impacts on the whole country. It means increased costs in later life. 4/
Targeting welfare claimants might appeal as a short term saving to the types of people who think poverty is a lifestyle choice, but as a fiscal, as well as humane, approach it is pointless and will inevitably lead to higher taxpayer expenditure down the line. 5/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Daniel Sohege 🧡

Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @stand_for_all

Oct 5
Not only is it bigoted, it is also a lie. UK takes fairly few asylum seekers comparatively. 98% of those crossing Channel seek asylum, and have to because of lack of other options, and more than 70% receive it. They aren't "abusing the system". They're in need of safety. #r4today
We are talking about people with good reason to seek asylum in UK, with no other way of doing so because the government has closed majority of other options. As has been shown by successive Home Secretaries, spouting the usual lies and misinformation doesn't cut channel crossings
It's just a merry-go-round of the same old nonsense, the same old lies and the same old hate. It isn't backed by evidence. It doesn't relate to the circumstances forcing people to make small boat crossings. It is designed to appeal to bigots. That's its only purpose.
Read 4 tweets
Oct 4
The majority of those crossing the channel seek asylum, and are granted it. When Braverman talks about "returning people" where does she mean? To countries where they face persecution? Because she can't "return" them anywhere else without agreement.
The UK has shut down most "legal" routes. Even those they haven't are limited. It's an island. How else are people, people with good reasons for seeking asylum here than anywhere else, meant to find safety?
At the end of the day though, her pledge is meaningless. It is illegal. It would tie the Home Office up in a never ending string on unwinnable cases, and leave the most vulnerable at risk of exploitation and mental and physical harm.
Read 6 tweets
Oct 4
THREAD: Some thoughts on Suella Braverman's proposed policy of banning anyone crossing the channel in small boats from claiming asylum. It's a distraction, but it is one which allows for actual policies later. 1/
Under international law an asylum is protected from penalties for their manner of entry. That is International Law though and not UK Domestic law. International law theoretically trumps domestic, but it isn't as simple as that. 2/
The thing is though that any such policy would be bogged down in legal cases, which may suit some within the Conservatives with their argument that "lefty lawyers" are preventing the government "tackling channel crossings". 3/
Read 11 tweets
Oct 4
Back to PR stunts as policy. Banning anyone who crossed the channel from seeking asylum is so blatantly illegal it would get laughed out of court. That Braverman plans to suggest it shows her contempt for international law and human rights though. #r4today
thetimes.co.uk/article/ce2925…
There is no onus on asylum seekers to seek it in the "first safe country". The term "first safe country" appears in absolutely no legal instruments related to seeking asylum. An asylum seekers right to cross countries to see it one they see as safe is protected though. Image
The UK has never been, and still isn't, a main destination for asylum seekers. It ranks about 18th per head of population for the number taken. For those who do seek it here there are good reasons. The main two being family ties and language, so have clearly legitimate reason. Image
Read 4 tweets
Sep 28
THREAD:
What we need in this country, and many others to be fair, is to stop treating immigration as a negative and start actually creating policies which benefit people, and the country. This isn't it. 1/
mirror.co.uk/news/politics/…
Before coming up with any policy you need to look at where public attitudes are. That doesn't mean just looking to your membership or what the most vocal shout. It's about seeing where attitudes in general are, and on immigration they're softening. 2/
bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/…
Immigration currently ranks at fourth on voter priorities, behind, understandably, the economy, health and the environment, with only 24% of people surveyed counting it is a core issue. 3/
yougov.co.uk/topics/educati…
Read 21 tweets
Sep 24
This is going to need to be re-upped a lot. Yes there are obvious reasons why states and the public may want to refuse Russians seeking asylum, however, many still do have 100% legitimate claims to be refugees, whatever your feelings, and are protected under international law.
It doesn't mean you condone Putin's genocide in Ukraine to acknowledge that you do actually need to protect Russians fleeing his regime. You also can't say "they should stay and fight back against him" from the safety of your armchairs. The real world doesn't work like that.
Oh, and on that note, the "they should stay and fight" argument is pretty heavily loaded already. It is used, particularly by the far right, against Afghans, Syrians... pretty much every refugee actually. So you may want to consider the precedent you are setting using it.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(