Asylum seekers put up in luxury hotel at cost of £400,000 to the taxpayer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltron

A fan of Murdoch I see.

---

Partly, he helped keep this country out of the disasterous Euro at a time when only a minority in the Conservative Party along with Ukip were opposed to joining it. For that, at least, i'm grateful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltron

Those newspapers will blab anything to get readers. Nielsen polling shows that a majority of Australians are happy to increase the amount of AS we allow in. Can view the polling details there.

---

Er what? That poll shows an overwhelming majority - even among Labor voters - in favour of overseas processing and a slim majority of 1% against allowing more in than you already do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltron

What does Murdoch and his friends use over at The Australian for accurate polling? Internet polls which anyone can access and manipulate given the right technology. I think your view of how Australians perceive AS is a little off.

---

If allowing asylum seekers into Australia is so popular then why did the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tighten asylum laws just prior to the federal elections?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Partly, he helped keep this country out of the disasterous Euro at a time when only a minority in the Conservative Party along with Ukip were opposed to joining it. For that, at least, i'm grateful.

---

Fair enough. You would do well as a journalist for Murdoch or Fairfax / UK counterparts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If allowing asylum seekers into Australia is so popular then why did the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tighten asylum laws just prior to the federal elections?

---

I don't have any source I am just going off what I remember (so you can choose to accept or deny this) and that was that Labor was in for a record breaking loss in the last election and Abbot's single campaign policy for months was that he would stop the boats. When Rudd offered a solution to the issue which Murdoch and Fairfax had been slaughtering the papers with it forced Abbott and the coalition to change their publicity campaigns (and finally tell us what else they were going to do) because all of a sudden their slogan 'we will stop the boats' was no longer relevant as Rudd had done something to 'stop' the boats.

Polling for Labor increased slightly after this but no where near enough to what was needed. Rudd was looking for something, anything, to give him another few years.

--

It's an endless debate regardless as we are both obviously on different political spectrums and sides of the debate.

I've heard so much about asylum seekers in terms of Australia or the UK but I don't think we have ever had an issue with it in New Zealand.

However I think the treatment of Asylum seekers should not be compared between aus and UK. Australia is bigger, has a lot more space and also is very economically sound. The fact a McDonalds employee can earn up to $25 an hour in Australia is absurd.
So I personally think UK needs to be tight on their AS laws however a place like Australia could probably do with a little bit more of multiculturalism maybe it would decrease the amount of racists there.

As you said above this **** has been debated for years on end and people will constantly disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ihatehash

So I personally think UK needs to be tight on their AS laws however a place like Australia could probably do with a little bit more of multiculturalism maybe it would decrease the amount of racists there.

---

Let the most racist nations on earth take in asylum seekers then - so that'd be China, Japan, most of south-east Asia and virtually all of Africa then. Why should the most tolerant and welcoming of nations on this planet (the Anglo-sphere nations) continue to shoulder the burden? And why is it that only generally white nations are labelled as being racist when they are the most tolerant of all? Isn't it time we started calling out the rest of the world on their racism?

Besides, i've had enough of multiculturalism (which isn't multiracialism) myself: I think generally as a country we've had our fair share of third world and backwards cultures being allowed into this country.

I'll enjoy my own culture thank you very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ihatehash

The fact a McDonalds employee can earn up to $25 an hour in Australia is absurd.

---

See this always frustrates me - not with you but as a general point. :P I always argue with the same group of people against the minimum wage, yet they reply to me that it helps the poor. Then when it comes to mass immigration they support opening the borders to drive the wages of the poor down.

I've never understood it and don't think they do either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Partly, he helped keep this country out of the disasterous Euro at a time when only a minority in the Conservative Party along with Ukip were opposed to joining it. For that, at least, i'm grateful.



Er what? That poll shows an overwhelming majority - even among Labor voters - in favour of overseas processing and a slim majority of 1% against allowing more in than you already do.



If allowing asylum seekers into Australia is so popular then why did the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tighten asylum laws just prior to the federal elections?

---

Maybe that's one of the reasons he got voted out? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Maybe that's one of the reasons he got voted out? :P

---

Well one of the reasons was that he wasn't doing anything about it and that Tony Abbott was driving the agenda with a pledged popular clampdwn on asylum seekers - Rudd thought if he matched that policy then he'd outclass Abbott but it failed and he was thankfully voted out.

I know some of you don't like to hear it, but across the western world immigration/asylum is a huge issue. In some polls in Great Britain it's nearing/has overtaken the economy as the number one voter concern. The issue isn't going to disappear anymore just because a few out of touch politicians shout anyone down who wants control over our borders as a 'bigot' or a wayyycist.

Lots of spin going on here. This article has assumed that the government booked the most expensive room for all of those asylum seekers for the entire duration and paid the weekend price for all of those days which is lets be honest false since the hotel does not have 50 of their most expensive room.

It's also assumed that the government paid the full price for the rooms, which if we examine the facts is unlikely, if you book 50 rooms for 9 weeks you're going to get a good deal even if you weren't looking for one.

I'd be surprised if the government paid any more than £100,000 and I'd estimate somewhere around £50,000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I think generally as a country we've had our fair share of third world and backwards cultures being allowed into this country

---

Well uh this is fab. Colonize and invade these countries, destroy cultures and traditions, destroy everything so that people would want to migrate where there are opportunities. Call them backward when they do so.

I love how you referred most of Asia and Africa as racist but you are putting a rigid identity on people you don't even know. So tell me nothing more about your heritage and culture when it literally survived on violence and oppression. Your people relied on destroying their cultures for their own good but you still can't see that colonization shaped these countries for worse from which they NEVER recovered. Your opinions on these countries were never desired from the very beginning so shut up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Lots of spin going on here. This article has assumed that the government booked the most expensive room for all of those asylum seekers for the entire duration and paid the weekend price for all of those days which is lets be honest false since the hotel does not have 50 of their most expensive room.

It's also assumed that the government paid the full price for the rooms, which if we examine the facts is unlikely, if you book 50 rooms for 9 weeks you're going to get a good deal even if you weren't looking for one.

I'd be surprised if the government paid any more than £100,000 and I'd estimate somewhere around £50,000

---

Nice try at speculation, but even the councillors are complaining about this decision - therefore that makes the Daily Telegraph + the councillors right and you wrong.

But even if you were right - it's still £50k too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

Well uh this is fab. Colonize and invade these countries, destroy cultures and traditions..

I love how you referred most of Asia and Africa as racist but you are putting a rigid identity on people you don't even know. So tell me nothing more about your heritage and culture when it literally survived on violence and oppression. Your people relied on destroying their cultures for their own good but you still can't see that colonization shaped these countries for worse from which they NEVER recovered. Your opinions on these countries were never desired from the very beginning so shut up

---

Ah get of your high horse, i'm so sick of this garbage being repeated on the reputation Britain. You in India are the last people who can complain about colonisation - what country was it, in the post-colonial age, that invaded the independent state of Hydrabad and annexed it via military means? India. Which country was it that invaded Goa and Daman and annexed them in the 1960's? India. Which country is a country steeped in racism and still is with the caste system? India. Which country is it that treated the Sikh's like total dirt - denies them self-determination - and flirted with the Soviet Union? India.

I will take NO lectures from India on any of it, so shove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

destroy everything so that people would want to migrate where there are opportunities. Call them backward when they do so.

---

AHAHAHA WHAT!? Most former British colonies are a thousand times worse off than they were under British rule, included India which until the 1990s was poorer than it was under British rule.

All of these countries have been independent since 1940 to 1960s and yet still feel the need to blame British along with France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. If you want to blame somebody for the mess in the Third World then maybe it's time to start looking closer to home instead of engaging in the type of rhetoric that Mugabe does where he says EVERYTHING is the fault of Britain.

India and the other countries are poor because they followed the wrong economic model after decolonisation and couldn't grapple with home-grown corruption - that's why the post-imperial age has been a disaster for you rather than blaming the people who built the world schools, hospitals, government buildings, roads, brought you electric, built ports, gave you common law, gave you liberty, gave you democracy.... the list is endless.

And even if everything you said was true (which being cheap rhetoric, it's not) why does that mean Britain today should be flooded with people from the Third World who we, the public, do not want? Answer that one for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I will take NO lectures from India on any of it, so shove it.

---

Now who am I going to give these tickets for the 'History of India' lecture at Manchester University too :(