Have your say
The pictures of Aylan Kurdi, the three-year-old Syrian boy found washed up on a beach in Antalya, Turkey, appear to have (finally) brought it home to the British commentariat that more must be done to help those refugees currently fleeing from war and dictatorship.
As such, David Cameron is coming under increasing pressure to let in more refugees. Up to now the prime minister has responded that Britain is doing a great deal to help refugees – but by spending money on aid to be sent to the areas where people are fleeing in the first place.
But are the prime minister’s critics right – should Britain take in more refugees? Or is Britain, as the PM likes to point out, already doing its bit?
Have your say – the results of the poll will be published early next week.
Create your own user feedback survey
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
94 Responses to “Poll: Should Britain take in more refugees?”
Alan Williams
Hey guess what… it’s not about the amount of land we have it’s about social cohesion and existing infrastructure or do you naively think the green belt grows roads, water treament plants, schools, and power stations like flipping Hay? Or is it too hard for you to take in facts that undermine your warped world view?
Ashley
I haven’t been able to read all comments but shouldn’t the UK’s general public have a proper vote to decide to take People/children refugees into our country instead of David Cameron making the decision off of his own back?
Kate HA
Hungary, Chech rep, Poland, Slovakia et al “not panicking”. Do try to keep up if you must insist on publicising your opinions.
Kate HA
Check it out. Israel is overwhelmed with ‘migrants’ …. many from Sudan.
Amazinglyso
All politicians/media journalists in support of major immigration never consider the adverse implications on wider society of such indelible diversity, despite commendable humanitarian endeavours to rescue those fleeing persecution in their own countries; Britons of all ethnicity, social class and political persuasion are genuinely empathetic of the prevalent immigrant crisis, yet feel helpless in their own poorer economic communities to know how to help those in equally desperatesituations – especially homeless charities and housing associations to which immigrants largely depend upon for permanent shelter.
The Pearly-Haute that champion pro-immigration gloss over matters of inherent inequalities within disadvantaged communities also demonstrate a certain ugly disdain for national identity – no one is
particularly interested, yet ironically and predominantly in equalsocial mobility. It is also most very true that the Pearly-Haute happily and readily place these impoverished masses in already struggling communities – why NO to more immigration should be the answer (unless) the wealthiest are willing to give up privately owned land or Greenbelt to balance population levels.
Regardless of Cameron’s right decision in Bourgeoisie-Ruling times where distribution of national wealth so greedily hoarded, one thing is certain and sleeping in the idle conscience of everyone – contempt for autocracy holds very true, whether it is in the holy lands or in Britain, people of all disadvantaged need will not be exploited longerterm; whether by modern notions of national identity or bent media toff apparent prejudice towards the suffering of all marginalized peoples.