In turn, years of pent up mistrust of the EU (stoked by right wing media and politicians of all stripes), has curdled into a feeling that it is the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels who are responsible for the immigration.
A single vote was the only thing necessary to "take back control" (a stroke of genius by the Leave campaign).
So... now that we have thrown the EU away, what will the problems be blamed on next? Because the problems are still with us even if the EU is not. Who is next for scapegoating?
The government obviously, since that was the whole object of the exercise.
"So what I'm asking for is some evidence for that second part ("social settlement on welfare and pensions is under demographic threat, partly...due to external migration"), unless you're also making @AlsoIndigo 's case that people *think* this is happening, so it would be helpful to pretend to do something about it."
Surely not an assertion which needs much in the way of evidence to support it? More claimants for cake = less cake per claimant, unless cake and claimants rise equally, or cake does better. It is not in doubt that there is net immigration, so that means more claimants. And there's Mrs Duffy, who looked to me an honest and level-headed woman.
On the basis that migrants are more likely to be in work and pay taxes and be less likely to claim benefits, increasing migration reduces the burden on the state and so increases the cake to claimant ratio.
It really isn't hard.
"It really isn't hard" is really patronising. And you are wrong. You would only be right if all the tax surplus were ploughed directly back into housing, and education, and hospital beds. It isn't. You are like people who say "why give foreign aid to India when they have a space program" as if the shortfall would be made up pound for pound out of the space budget to precisely the projects from which we withdrew foreign aid. We are not in fact madly building housing, and hospital wings, and schools and even if we were, there are limits to how much you can do any of those things.
And you presumably realise that the taxpaying migrants are in the main short-term fruit and asparagus pickers? Strip them out, and the tax surplus disappears.
Oh joy, we have a typhoon running through tomorrow, I think its going to be a slightly damp Christmas Day, the windy bit is thankfully passing a little to the north, but the rain band is going right over the top of us, I think the outside party might need a little replanning!
Immigrants are overwhelmingly relatively young. Health services (and pensions) are overwhelmingly consumed by the old and the pressures on the system are coming from ageing. So it seems fairly clear that healthcare at least benefits from immigrants' economic bonus.
Immigrants are much better educated on average than the native-born. Their average income is higher also. Your "rather likely" notion looks implausible.
I'm glad you're opposed to the concept of having to check your privilege. I would hate to think that you were making a cheap point in a vain attempt to disbar me from expressing my arguments rather than address them.
As it happens, my other half and I have probably had a lifetime's worth out of the NHS this year and as a result I have very fresh impressions of how it is working. Without immigrants, it would grind to a halt.
So if uncontrolled immigration is so good for the economy why has the decade of uncontrolled immigrated seen stagnant GDP per capita, over a trillion pound increase in government debt and rising inequality ?
As to the NHS it managed to function well enough before uncontrolled immigration - are you saying without uncontrolled immigration it would grind to a halt ?
1) Correlation not causation. The rise in government debt sprang from a recession deeper than the 1930s and weak wages growth partly comes from that and partly from poor productivity, lack of investment in infrastructure, poor skills of the native-born population and an unlimited willingness on the part of soil disant deficit hawks to spunk huge sums of money instead on hobby horse projects like Brexit.
2) As you know, that was not what I wrote.
Something like 75% of the nurses on the ward my other half was on were immigrants (I saw only two white English nurses, one of whom had a Jewish surname, so if anything I'm understating the value of immigration to that ward). Perhaps you have every faith in the British state setting up a bureaucratic infrastructure that will allow for that flow to continue unimpeded at all times without affecting service standards at a time when NHS funding is being kept under lock tight restraint. Quaint.
Are you seriously contending that skin colour and immigration status can be deduced from each other? Quaint.
"So what I'm asking for is some evidence for that second part ("social settlement on welfare and pensions is under demographic threat, partly...due to external migration"), unless you're also making @AlsoIndigo 's case that people *think* this is happening, so it would be helpful to pretend to do something about it."
Surely not an assertion which needs much in the way of evidence to support it? More claimants for cake = less cake per claimant, unless cake and claimants rise equally, or cake does better. It is not in doubt that there is net immigration, so that means more claimants. And there's Mrs Duffy, who looked to me an honest and level-headed woman.
On the basis that migrants are more likely to be in work and pay taxes and be less likely to claim benefits, increasing migration reduces the burden on the state and so increases the cake to claimant ratio.
It really isn't hard.
Do you have evidence for that assertion ? The bit about claiming less benefits especially.
To take an example from yesterday, 61% of Bangladeshi women are economically inactive, most of them have families, are we to believe they claim no benefits ?
Which doesn't include Working Families Tax Credit because that is a HMRC benefit not a DWP benefit. Funny thing about quoting sources from pro-EU groups, always good at cherry picking data.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
"So what I'm asking for is some evidence for that second part ("social settlement on welfare and pensions is under demographic threat, partly...due to external migration"), unless you're also making @AlsoIndigo 's case that people *think* this is happening, so it would be helpful to pretend to do something about it."
Surely not an assertion which needs much in the way of evidence to support it? More claimants for cake = less cake per claimant, unless cake and claimants rise equally, or cake does better. It is not in doubt that there is net immigration, so that means more claimants. And there's Mrs Duffy, who looked to me an honest and level-headed woman.
On the basis that migrants are more likely to be in work and pay taxes and be less likely to claim benefits, increasing migration reduces the burden on the state and so increases the cake to claimant ratio.
It really isn't hard.
"It really isn't hard" is really patronising. And you are wrong. You would only be right if all the tax surplus were ploughed directly back into housing, and education, and hospital beds. It isn't. You are like people who say "why give foreign aid to India when they have a space program" as if the shortfall would be made up pound for pound out of the space budget to precisely the projects from which we withdrew foreign aid. We are not in fact madly building housing, and hospital wings, and schools and even if we were, there are limits to how much you can do any of those things.
And you presumably realise that the taxpaying migrants are in the main short-term fruit and asparagus pickers? Strip them out, and the tax surplus disappears.
Typhoons get their name from Typhon, one of the most terrifying of the Greek mythological monsters. He beat Zeus up and tore off the Olympian's muscles, whilst the rest of the gods ran off to Ethiopia. Someone (sorry, forget who) retrieved Zeus' muscles, sewed them back on, and in the rematch Zeus dropped a mountain on Typhon (Mount Etna).
Incidentally, there's a phenomenon called volcanic lightning, which looks absolutely fantastic, and rather echoes the Typhon/Zeus fights.
"So what I'm asking for is some evidence for that second part ("social settlement on welfare and pensions is under demographic threat, partly...due to external migration"), unless you're also making @AlsoIndigo 's case that people *think* this is happening, so it would be helpful to pretend to do something about it."
Surely not an assertion which needs much in the way of evidence to support it? More claimants for cake = less cake per claimant, unless cake and claimants rise equally, or cake does better. It is not in doubt that there is net immigration, so that means more claimants. And there's Mrs Duffy, who looked to me an honest and level-headed woman.
On the basis that migrants are more likely to be in work and pay taxes and be less likely to claim benefits, increasing migration reduces the burden on the state and so increases the cake to claimant ratio.
It really isn't hard.
"It really isn't hard" is really patronising. And you are wrong. You would only be right if all the tax surplus were ploughed directly back into housing, and education, and hospital beds. It isn't. You are like people who say "why give foreign aid to India when they have a space program" as if the shortfall would be made up pound for pound out of the space budget to precisely the projects from which we withdrew foreign aid. We are not in fact madly building housing, and hospital wings, and schools and even if we were, there are limits to how much you can do any of those things.
And you presumably realise that the taxpaying migrants are in the main short-term fruit and asparagus pickers? Strip them out, and the tax surplus disappears.
"So what I'm asking for is some evidence for that second part ("social settlement on welfare and pensions is under demographic threat, partly...due to external migration"), unless you're also making @AlsoIndigo 's case that people *think* this is happening, so it would be helpful to pretend to do something about it."
Surely not an assertion which needs much in the way of evidence to support it? More claimants for cake = less cake per claimant, unless cake and claimants rise equally, or cake does better. It is not in doubt that there is net immigration, so that means more claimants. And there's Mrs Duffy, who looked to me an honest and level-headed woman.
On the basis that migrants are more likely to be in work and pay taxes and be less likely to claim benefits, increasing migration reduces the burden on the state and so increases the cake to claimant ratio.
It really isn't hard.
Do you have evidence for that assertion ? The bit about claiming less benefits especially.
To take an example from yesterday, 61% of Bangladeshi women are economically inactive, most of them have families, are we to believe they claim no benefits ?
Which doesn't include Working Families Tax Credit because that is a HMRC benefit not a DWP benefit. Funny thing about quoting sources from pro-EU groups, always good at cherry picking data.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
No.
You made an assertion. I asked for evidence. You gave me cherry picked nonsense from a pro-EU pressure group and for some reason when I call you out on this expect me to disprove your cherry picked nonsense.
"So what I'm asking for is some evidence for that second part ("social settlement on welfare and pensions is under demographic threat, partly...due to external migration"), unless you're also making @AlsoIndigo 's case that people *think* this is happening, so it would be helpful to pretend to do something about it."
Surely not an assertion which needs much in the way of evidence to support it? More claimants for cake = less cake per claimant, unless cake and claimants rise equally, or cake does better. It is not in doubt that there is net immigration, so that means more claimants. And there's Mrs Duffy, who looked to me an honest and level-headed woman.
On the basis that migrants are more likely to be in work and pay taxes and be less likely to claim benefits, increasing migration reduces the burden on the state and so increases the cake to claimant ratio.
It really isn't hard.
If only? Frustrations here are caused because people see that the black market is alive and well. That they cherry pick what they want for example they use the NHS and education here but then fly back easy jet to get dentistry. Many here in this area have a permanent home abroad with dependants that the benefits keep going. My wife worked in a school where pupils couldn't speak English and neither did the parents. The school was expected to meet the curriculum while teaching English basics. Extra costs for English and translators resulted these costs met from other parts of the budget thus denying other children.
She saw and had to deal with all of this first hand for 10 years and then just finally gave up the tide was overwhelming. So irrespective of the romantic image you wish to paint it's just ain't so and you need to get into the real world and perhaps the front line.
So if uncontrolled immigration is so good for the economy why has the decade of uncontrolled immigrated seen stagnant GDP per capita, over a trillion pound increase in government debt and rising inequality ?
As to the NHS it managed to function well enough before uncontrolled immigration - are you saying without uncontrolled immigration it would grind to a halt ?
1) Correlation not causation. The rise in government debt sprang from a recession deeper than the 1930s and weak wages growth partly comes from that and partly from poor productivity, lack of investment in infrastructure, poor skills of the native-born population and an unlimited willingness on the part of soil disant deficit hawks to spunk huge sums of money instead on hobby horse projects like Brexit.
2) As you know, that was not what I wrote.
Something like 75% of the nurses on the ward my other half was on were immigrants (I saw only two white English nurses, one of whom had a Jewish surname, so if anything I'm understating the value of immigration to that ward). Perhaps you have every faith in the British state setting up a bureaucratic infrastructure that will allow for that flow to continue unimpeded at all times without affecting service standards at a time when NHS funding is being kept under lock tight restraint. Quaint.
1) So you won't answer the question - I'll ask it again.
If uncontrolled immigration is so good for the economy why has the decade of uncontrolled immigrated seen stagnant GDP per capita, over a trillion pound increase in government debt and rising inequality
All the reasons you try to give applied also before the era of uncontrolled immigration and yet there wasn't stagnant GDP per capita or a trillion pounds of government borrowing.
In fact the uncontrolled immigration you support has had damaging effects on productivity, wages growth, capital investment and infrastructure.
2) You may not have wrote it but you are a supporter of uncontrolled immigration.
You are assuming that your London NHS experiences are the same as those for the rest of the country. You need to broaden your outlook and see what happens among the people you refer to as 'carrot crunchers'.
And please explain how the NHS managed to operate before the era of uncontrolled immigration.
On the basis that migrants are more likely to be in work and pay taxes and be less likely to claim benefits, increasing migration reduces the burden on the state and so increases the cake to claimant ratio.
It really isn't hard.
Do you have evidence for that assertion ? The bit about claiming less benefits especially.
To take an example from yesterday, 61% of Bangladeshi women are economically inactive, most of them have families, are we to believe they claim no benefits ?
Which doesn't include Working Families Tax Credit because that is a HMRC benefit not a DWP benefit. Funny thing about quoting sources from pro-EU groups, always good at cherry picking data.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
Migrants are drawn by the chances of economic success and a broadly liberal regime that allows them to maintain cultural practices within migrant communities.
Net net, migrants are an clear boon to the economy because we are importing skilled, young taxpayers.
Of course within that there is the question of how welfare is dispensed and you cannot accurately describe the whole picture without pointing out the considerable generosity (from, say, a Romanian perspective) of our in-work benefits.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
My Dad was recently in a NHS hospital and while he was there I asked 3 staff about their jobs
Nurse 1 voted Leave because immigration was placing too much strain on the NHS
Nurse 2 was a Slovakian-Portuguese who said A&E should not be free as it was full of drunks, drug addicts and girls taking pills because their bf dumped them
Doctor was a young Asian man who said the NHS should be privatised but no politician had the guts to risk losing votes by suggesting it
On the basis that migrants are more likely to be in work and pay taxes and be less likely to claim benefits, increasing migration reduces the burden on the state and so increases the cake to claimant ratio.
It really isn't hard.
Do you have evidence for that assertion ? The bit about claiming less benefits especially.
To take an example from yesterday, 61% of Bangladeshi women are economically inactive, most of them have families, are we to believe they claim no benefits ?
Which doesn't include Working Families Tax Credit because that is a HMRC benefit not a DWP benefit. Funny thing about quoting sources from pro-EU groups, always good at cherry picking data.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
Migrants are drawn by the chances of economic success and a broadly liberal regime that allows them to maintain cultural practices within migrant communities.
Net net, migrants are an clear boon to the economy because we are importing skilled, young taxpayers.
Of course within that there is the question of how welfare is dispensed and you cannot accurately describe the whole picture without pointing out the considerable generosity (from, say, a Romanian perspective) of our in-work benefits.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
I agree with most of what you say. However the majority of skilled immigration into the NHS is from Asia, and therefore requires a visa at the moment. How this is therefore related to BrExit and all the horror stories of raise drawbridges and closing gates I am not sure. (I am not suggesting you are making the running in this, but its not exactly an uncommon argument here)
Typhoons get their name from Typhon, one of the most terrifying of the Greek mythological monsters. He beat Zeus up and tore off the Olympian's muscles, whilst the rest of the gods ran off to Ethiopia. Someone (sorry, forget who) retrieved Zeus' muscles, sewed them back on, and in the rematch Zeus dropped a mountain on Typhon (Mount Etna).
Incidentally, there's a phenomenon called volcanic lightning, which looks absolutely fantastic, and rather echoes the Typhon/Zeus fights.
Rather entertaining for us who instantly got what Trump was doing, whilst others quibbled.
America First First Boeing and now Lockheed Martin. We keep on winning! #TrumpEffect https://t.co/cv3R4m11FE
What happens when costs don't go down. Does Trump substitute a new reality?
I imagine he calls her a liar publically showing her tweet as evidence and demands her resignation. Making such a statement in public to the president-elect and then not at least paying lip service to it would seem to be courageous.
"So what I'm asking for is some evidence for that second part ("social settlement on welfare and pensions is under demographic threat, partly...due to external migration"), unless you're also making @AlsoIndigo 's case that people *think* this is happening, so it would be helpful to pretend to do something about it."
Surely not an assertion which needs much in the way of evidence to support it? More claimants for cake = less cake per claimant, unless cake and claimants rise equally, or cake does better. It is not in doubt that there is net immigration, so that means more claimants. And there's Mrs Duffy, who looked to me an honest and level-headed woman.
On the basis that migrants are more likely to be in work and pay taxes and be less likely to claim benefits, increasing migration reduces the burden on the state and so increases the cake to claimant ratio.
It really isn't hard.
If only? Frustrations here are caused because people see that the black market is alive and well. That they cherry pick what they want for example they use the NHS and education here but then fly back easy jet to get dentistry. Many here in this area have a permanent home abroad with dependants that the benefits keep going. My wife worked in a school where pupils couldn't speak English and neither did the parents. The school was expected to meet the curriculum while teaching English basics. Extra costs for English and translators resulted these costs met from other parts of the budget thus denying other children.
She saw and had to deal with all of this first hand for 10 years and then just finally gave up the tide was overwhelming. So irrespective of the romantic image you wish to paint it's just ain't so and you need to get into the real world and perhaps the front line.
Yeah I know Rayyyyyciisssttt!!
More anecdata. Yawn.
Again, both wrong and bad mannered. The anecdote/data distinction comes from medicine, where anecdotes are unreliable for reasons specific to medicine (self-deception, placebo effect, ignorance of likely outcome in absence of the treatment being evaluated). You do realise that every statement of fact ever given in a law court is anecdotal? Or do you think a witness can be demolished by saying "you say you saw the defendant plunge the knife repeatedly into his wife, Mr X, but have you tested this claim in a double-blinded prospective cohort trial?" We jail people for life, and used to hang them, on the basis of anecdotes.
Moses' account is not "anecdata", it is solid and convincing evidence which greatly damages your case.
On the basis that migrants are more likely to be in work and pay taxes and be less likely to claim benefits, increasing migration reduces the burden on the state and so increases the cake to claimant ratio.
It really isn't hard.
Do you have evidence for that assertion ? The bit about claiming less benefits especially.
To take an example from yesterday, 61% of Bangladeshi women are economically inactive, most of them have families, are we to believe they claim no benefits ?
Which doesn't include Working Families Tax Credit because that is a HMRC benefit not a DWP benefit. Funny thing about quoting sources from pro-EU groups, always good at cherry picking data.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
Migrants are drawn by the chances of economic success and a broadly liberal regime that allows them to maintain cultural practices within migrant communities.
Net net, migrants are an clear boon to the economy because we are importing skilled, young taxpayers.
Of course within that there is the question of how welfare is dispensed and you cannot accurately describe the whole picture without pointing out the considerable generosity (from, say, a Romanian perspective) of our in-work benefits.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
In turn, years of pent up mistrust of the EU (stoked by right wing media and politicians of all stripes), has curdled into a feeling that it is the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels who are responsible for the immigration.
A single vote was the only thing necessary to "take back control" (a stroke of genius by the Leave campaign).
So... now that we have thrown the EU away, what will the problems be blamed on next? Because the problems are still with us even if the EU is not. Who is next for scapegoating?
Christopher I've just visited my sister's with my dog Bella. Bella has now been permanently banned due to what we'll call "The Christmas Tree Incident"
Do you have evidence for that assertion ? The bit about claiming less benefits especially.
To take an example from yesterday, 61% of Bangladeshi women are economically inactive, most of them have families, are we to believe they claim no benefits ?
Which doesn't include Working Families Tax Credit because that is a HMRC benefit not a DWP benefit. Funny thing about quoting sources from pro-EU groups, always good at cherry picking data.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
Migrants are drawn by the chances of economic success and a broadly liberal regime that allows them to maintain cultural practices within migrant communities.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
You don't want to admit it, but it's the truth. There are mountains of evidence, not least the arguments put forward by people on here when they dmsupport immigration by pointing out it has only meant a tiny decrease in wages at the lower end since 2004, as if that was good news
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
I agree with most of what you say. However the majority of skilled immigration into the NHS is from Asia, and therefore requires a visa at the moment. How this is therefore related to BrExit and all the horror stories of raise drawbridges and closing gates I am not sure. (I am not suggesting you are making the running in this, but its not exactly an uncommon argument here)
I am sure the number of EU migrants in our NHS is significant. When my daughter was born two years ago, the midwives (in general) were Spanish and the anesthetologist was Italian. Doctors were Indian though.
The broader point, that a host of businesses and public services are dependent on immigration, of which the EU accounts for 50%, is true.
Rather entertaining for us who instantly got what Trump was doing, whilst others quibbled.
America First First Boeing and now Lockheed Martin. We keep on winning! #TrumpEffect https://t.co/cv3R4m11FE
LOL. You do realise that Hewson's message says nothing of any substance: there are no targets, no repercussions.
Anyway, LM think they're reducing the per-unit cost of the F35 all the time (at east according to their own figures. And that was *before* Trump became pres-elect.
Do you have evidence for that assertion ? The bit about claiming less benefits especially.
To take an example from yesterday, 61% of Bangladeshi women are economically inactive, most of them have families, are we to believe they claim no benefits ?
Which doesn't include Working Families Tax Credit because that is a HMRC benefit not a DWP benefit. Funny thing about quoting sources from pro-EU groups, always good at cherry picking data.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
Migrants are drawn by the chances of economic success and a broadly liberal regime that allows them to maintain cultural practices within migrant communities.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
You don't want to admit it, but it's the truth. There are mountains of evidence, not least the arguments put forward by people on here when they dmsupport immigration by pointing out it has only meant a tiny decrease in wages at the lower end since 2004, as if that was good news
Can you supply any evidence? It's an area of deep interest to me and I'd been keen to see it.
Many thanks, David, for a very thoughtful thought-provoking thread header.
If the EU is correct in its approach, then surely there's only one way to tackle these problems: an eventual one-world polity/government: uniform laws, uniform taxes, uniform benefits wherever one lives in the world.
Trouble is the EU hasn't really solved the democratic problem, and that problem would become ever greater as the new improved Single World Market spread its wings over more & more nations.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
I agree with most of what you say. However the majority of skilled immigration into the NHS is from Asia, and therefore requires a visa at the moment. How this is therefore related to BrExit and all the horror stories of raise drawbridges and closing gates I am not sure. (I am not suggesting you are making the running in this, but its not exactly an uncommon argument here)
I am sure the number of EU migrants in our NHS is significant. When my daughter was born two years ago, the midwives (in general) were Spanish and the anesthetologist was Italian. Doctors were Indian though.
The broader point, that a host of businesses and public services are dependent on immigration, of which the EU accounts for 50%, is true.
My point was that just as we give a visa to the Indian doctor now, there is no reason to suppose that we would not give a visa to the Spanish or Italian staff in a post-BrExit world should it be required. The Romanian clearing tables in your local cafe might find it touch harder, in the same way as an Indian would never get a visa to clear tables now.
Which doesn't include Working Families Tax Credit because that is a HMRC benefit not a DWP benefit. Funny thing about quoting sources from pro-EU groups, always good at cherry picking data.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
You don't want to admit it, but it's the truth. There are mountains of evidence, not least the arguments put forward by people on here when they dmsupport immigration by pointing out it has only meant a tiny decrease in wages at the lower end since 2004, as if that was good news
Can you supply any evidence? It's an area of deep interest to me and I'd been keen to see it.
Do you really need me to do that for you? Or is that code for 'I don't believe you, you're making it up to support a prejudice'?
If it really was an area of deep interest to you, you surely would have seen the evidence
Which doesn't include Working Families Tax Credit because that is a HMRC benefit not a DWP benefit. Funny thing about quoting sources from pro-EU groups, always good at cherry picking data.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
Migrants are drawn by the chances of economic success and a broadly liberal regime that allows them to maintain cultural practices within migrant communities.
Net net, migrants are an clear boon to the economy because we are importing skilled, young taxpayers.
Of course within that there is the question of how welfare is dispensed and you cannot accurately describe the whole picture without pointing out the considerable generosity (from, say, a Romanian perspective) of our in-work benefits.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
We have immigration that is both uncontrolled and unprepared for.
Even worse that governments far from putting in place the necessary housing, infrastructure, public services etc have instead repeatedly lied about the scale of immigration.
Consequences have included downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on housing prices/costs.
As David Herdson points out there has been a wealth shift from the 90% to the 0.1%.
So if uncontrolled immigration is so good for the economy why has the decade of uncontrolled immigrated seen stagnant GDP per capita, over a trillion pound increase in government debt and rising inequality ?
As to the NHS it managed to function well enough before uncontrolled immigration - are you saying without uncontrolled immigration it would grind to a halt ?
1) Correlation not causation. The rise in government debt sprang from a recession deeper than the 1930s and weak wages growth partly comes from that and partly from poor productivity, lack of investment in infrastructure, poor skills of the native-born population and an unlimited willingness on the part of soil disant deficit hawks to spunk huge sums of money instead on hobby horse projects like Brexit.
2) As you know, that was not what I wrote.
Something like 75% of the nurses on the ward my other half was on were immigrants (I saw only two white English nurses, one of whom had a Jewish surname, so if anything I'm understating the value of immigration to that ward). Perhaps you have every faith in the British state setting up a bureaucratic infrastructure that will allow for that flow to continue unimpeded at all times without affecting service standards at a time when NHS funding is being kept under lock tight restraint. Quaint.
1) So you won't answer the question - I'll ask it again.
If uncontrolled immigration is so good for the economy why has the decade of uncontrolled immigrated seen stagnant GDP per capita, over a trillion pound increase in government debt and rising inequality
All the reasons you try to give applied also before the era of uncontrolled immigration and yet there wasn't stagnant GDP per capita or a trillion pounds of government borrowing.
In fact the uncontrolled immigration you support has had damaging effects on productivity, wages growth, capital investment and infrastructure.
2) You may not have wrote it but you are a supporter of uncontrolled immigration.
You are assuming that your London NHS experiences are the same as those for the rest of the country. You need to broaden your outlook and see what happens among the people you refer to as 'carrot crunchers'.
And please explain how the NHS managed to operate before the era of uncontrolled immigration.
You seem to have lost the ability to read. The worst recession in 80 years played the starring part.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
You don't want to admit it, but it's the truth. There are mountains of evidence, not least the arguments put forward by people on here when they dmsupport immigration by pointing out it has only meant a tiny decrease in wages at the lower end since 2004, as if that was good news
Can you supply any evidence? It's an area of deep interest to me and I'd been keen to see it.
Do you really need me to do that for you? Or is that code for 'I don't believe you, you're making it up to support a prejudice'?
If it really was an area of deep interest to you, you surely would have seen the evidence
Nope, I'm happy to see the evidence.
I have been concerned about the scale of immigration for many years, although I have personally profited from it.
In the spirit of Christmas transparency, I am also an immigrant (from New Zealand, with a British passport via my U.K.-born father).
I have seen studies suggesting a minuscule effect on wages of some trades. But not enough to really write home about.
Which doesn't include Working Families Tax Credit because that is a HMRC benefit not a DWP benefit. Funny thing about quoting sources from pro-EU groups, always good at cherry picking data.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
Migrants are drawn by the chances of economic success and a broadly liberal regime that allows them to maintain cultural practices within migrant communities.
Net net, migrants are an clear boon to the economy because we are importing skilled, young taxpayers.
Of course within that there is the question of how welfare is dispensed and you cannot accurately describe the whole picture without pointing out the considerable generosity (from, say, a Romanian perspective) of our in-work benefits.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
We have immigration that is both uncontrolled and unprepared for.
Even worse that governments far from putting in place the necessary housing, infrastructure, public services etc have instead repeatedly lied about the scale of immigration.
Consequences have included downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on housing prices/costs.
As David Herdson points out there has been a wealth shift from the 90% to the 0.1%.
And that's a big % of Trump support - he's Drain the Swamp/take no salary/challenge the 1%/embarrass corporatism using Twitter/he's not part of 'the Washington Machine' or scared of the liberal MSM.
I think he's breaking dozens of liberal elite and fat cat eggs - hence their totally OTT reaction. Watershed stuff like Brexit with knobs on.
Which doesn't include Working Families Tax Credit because that is a HMRC benefit not a DWP benefit. Funny thing about quoting sources from pro-EU groups, always good at cherry picking data.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
Migrants are drawn by the chances of economic success and a broadly liberal regime that allows them to maintain cultural practices within migrant communities.
Net net, migrants are an clear boon to the economy because we are importing skilled, young taxpayers.
Of course within that there is the question of how welfare is dispensed and you cannot accurately describe the whole picture without pointing out the considerable generosity (from, say, a Romanian perspective) of our in-work benefits.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
We have immigration that is both uncontrolled and unprepared for.
Even worse that governments far from putting in place the necessary housing, infrastructure, public services etc have instead repeatedly lied about the scale of immigration.
Consequences have included downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on housing prices/costs.
As David Herdson points out there has been a wealth shift from the 90% to the 0.1%.
I really don't believe that immigration is reposnsivle for this shift.
It's a phenomenon that exists across the entire West and only countries with very redistributive policies have managed to avoid it.
"So what I'm asking for is some evidence for that second part ("social settlement on welfare and pensions is under demographic threat, partly...due to external migration"), unless you're also making @AlsoIndigo 's case that people *think* this is happening, so it would be helpful to pretend to do something about it."
Surely not an assertion which needs much in the way of evidence to support it? More claimants for cake = less cake per claimant, unless cake and claimants rise equally, or cake does better. It is not in doubt that there is net immigration, so that means more claimants. And there's Mrs Duffy, who looked to me an honest and level-headed woman.
On the basis that migrants are more likely to be in work and pay taxes and be less likely to claim benefits, increasing migration reduces the burden on the state and so increases the cake to claimant ratio.
It really isn't hard.
"It really isn't hard" is really patronising. And you are wrong. You would only be right if all the tax surplus were ploughed directly back into housing, and education, and hospital beds. It isn't. You are like people who say "why give foreign aid to India when they have a space program" as if the shortfall would be made up pound for pound out of the space budget to precisely the projects from which we withdrew foreign aid. We are not in fact madly building housing, and hospital wings, and schools and even if we were, there are limits to how much you can do any of those things.
And you presumably realise that the taxpaying migrants are in the main short-term fruit and asparagus pickers? Strip them out, and the tax surplus disappears.
Evidence?
Of?
This:
"And you presumably realise that the taxpaying migrants are in the main short-term fruit and asparagus pickers? Strip them out, and the tax surplus disappears."
Another fantastic 'new' Enoch interview, mainly focussing on his opposition to the price and incomes policy, & why it would be morally wrong for him to stand as a Conservative in 1974
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
You don't want to admit it, but it's the truth. There are mountains of evidence, not least the arguments put forward by people on here when they dmsupport immigration by pointing out it has only meant a tiny decrease in wages at the lower end since 2004, as if that was good news
Can you supply any evidence? It's an area of deep interest to me and I'd been keen to see it.
Do you really need me to do that for you? Or is that code for 'I don't believe you, you're making it up to support a prejudice'?
If it really was an area of deep interest to you, you surely would have seen the evidence
Nope, I'm happy to see the evidence.
I have been concerned about the scale of immigration for many years, although I have personally profited from it.
In the spirit of Christmas transparency, I am also an immigrant (from New Zealand, with a British passport via my U.K.-born father).
I have seen studies suggesting a minuscule effect on wages of some trades. But not enough to really write home about.
Just google 'immigration affect on wages'. The pro immigration argument is that it's only a 1% decrease over 12 years. Hooray get the Lambrusco out!!
Another fantastic 'new' Enoch interview, mainly focussing on his opposition to the price and incomes policy, & why it would be morally wrong for him to stand as a Conservative in 1974
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
You don't want to admit it, but it's the truth. There are mountains of evidence, not least the arguments put forward by people on here when they dmsupport immigration by pointing out it has only meant a tiny decrease in wages at the lower end since 2004, as if that was good news
Can you supply any evidence? It's an area of deep interest to me and I'd been keen to see it.
Do you really need me to do that for you? Or is that code for 'I don't believe you, you're making it up to support a prejudice'?
If it really was an area of deep interest to you, you surely would have seen the evidence
Nope, I'm happy to see the evidence.
I have been concerned about the scale of immigration for many years, although I have personally profited from it.
In the spirit of Christmas transparency, I am also an immigrant (from New Zealand, with a British passport via my U.K.-born father).
I have seen studies suggesting a minuscule effect on wages of some trades. But not enough to really write home about.
Just google 'immigration affect on wages'. The pro immigration argument is that it's only a 1% decrease over 12 years. Hooray get the Lambrusco out!!
We have immigration that is both uncontrolled and unprepared for.
Even worse that governments far from putting in place the necessary housing, infrastructure, public services etc have instead repeatedly lied about the scale of immigration.
This is as much the problem as anything else. The public know that Labour lied through their teeth about immigration because their own people have said so, in the same statements as they heard such bon mots as "rubbing the Right's face in diversity".
They also strongly suspect that the Tories lied through their teeth about immigration because of all the evasions and obfuscations when it turned out the number of NI numbers issued was vastly larger than the number of immigrants supposedly arriving.
It can't come as a great surprise that the public therefore conclude that the number must be much larger than anyone is prepared to admit, otherwise politicians would not be so coy about it. If the politicians are coy about it, it must be a matter for concern, and so the public are duly concerned.
Coming clean about the numbers, demonstrably investing a commensurate amount into health, education and housing would go a significant way to calming peoples nerves. What it wont do is get around the basic problem of lots of older and poorer people with possibly a rather parochial outlook being very uncomfortable about lots of unfamiliar languages being spoken in their towns, and lots of buildings connected with unfamiliar cultures and religions being built near where they live.
Migrants are drawn by the chances of economic success and a broadly liberal regime that allows them to maintain cultural practices within migrant communities.
Net net, migrants are an clear boon to the economy because we are importing skilled, young taxpayers.
Of course within that there is the question of how welfare is dispensed and you cannot accurately describe the whole picture without pointing out the considerable generosity (from, say, a Romanian perspective) of our in-work benefits.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
We have immigration that is both uncontrolled and unprepared for.
Even worse that governments far from putting in place the necessary housing, infrastructure, public services etc have instead repeatedly lied about the scale of immigration.
Consequences have included downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on housing prices/costs.
As David Herdson points out there has been a wealth shift from the 90% to the 0.1%.
I really don't believe that immigration is reposnsivle for this shift.
It's a phenomenon that exists across the entire West and only countries with very redistributive policies have managed to avoid it.
Immigration is not the only cause of this shift but it is one of the causes.
More people create competition for work hence a downward pressure on pay rates and more demand for housing hence an upward pressure on house price/costs.
Those are simple supply-and-demand facts.
And those two things cause a wealth shift up the socioeconomic scale.
Rather entertaining for us who instantly got what Trump was doing, whilst others quibbled.
America First First Boeing and now Lockheed Martin. We keep on winning! #TrumpEffect https://t.co/cv3R4m11FE
Summoning the CEOs of major industries and bullying them into making statements like this is the kind of thing petty dictators do.
In the end, it subverts corporate governance, public policy process, and shareholder's interests.
It makes a change from corporatism.
Not really, it is itself a form of corporatism. Trump can summon Boeing, but not the hundreds of thousands of smaller businesses that power the real economy.
We have immigration that is both uncontrolled and unprepared for.
Even worse that governments far from putting in place the necessary housing, infrastructure, public services etc have instead repeatedly lied about the scale of immigration.
This is as much the problem as anything else. The public know that Labour lied through their teeth about immigration because their own people have said so, in the same statements as they heard such bon mots as "rubbing the Right's face in diversity".
They also strongly suspect that the Tories lied through their teeth about immigration because of all the evasions and obfuscations when it turned out the number of NI numbers issued was vastly larger than the number of immigrants supposedly arriving.
It can't come as a great surprise that the public therefore conclude that the number must be much larger than anyone is prepared to admit, otherwise politicians would not be so coy about it. If the politicians are coy about it, it must be a matter for concern, and so the public are duly concerned.
Coming clean about the numbers, demonstrably investing a commensurate amount into health, education and housing would go a significant way to calming peoples nerves. What it wont do is get around the basic problem of lots of older and poorer people with possibly a rather parochial outlook being very uncomfortable about lots of unfamiliar languages being spoken in their towns, and lots of buildings connected with unfamiliar cultures and religions being built near where they live.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
You don't want to admit it, but it's the truth. There are mountains of evidence, not least the arguments put forward by people on here when they dmsupport immigration by pointing out it has only meant a tiny decrease in wages at the lower end since 2004, as if that was good news
Can you supply any evidence? It's an area of deep interest to me and I'd been keen to see it.
Do you really need me to do that for you? Or is that code for 'I don't believe you, you're making it up to support a prejudice'?
If it really was an area of deep interest to you, you surely would have seen the evidence
Nope, I'm happy to see the evidence.
I have been concerned about the scale of immigration for many years, although I have personally profited from it.
In the spirit of Christmas transparency, I am also an immigrant (from New Zealand, with a British passport via my U.K.-born father).
I have seen studies suggesting a minuscule effect on wages of some trades. But not enough to really write home about.
Just google 'immigration affect on wages'. The pro immigration argument is that it's only a 1% decrease over 12 years. Hooray get the Lambrusco out!!
Not significant in the bigger mix.
Says someone who does well out of it!
Flooding the labour market with cheap competition so the poorest people get a 12 year pay freeze turns out to be unpopular with the poor but popular with the rich - what a shocker!
All good conservatives have an element of inner socialist because at its heart, conservatism is a social rather than an economic movement (which is why it can be so flexible in its policy). If I had to reduce it's objectives to less than 10 words, it would be "to minimise the risk of severe social disruption" - because without a relatively stable society, the opportunities for other advancement rapidly diminish.
Would you agree that on that definition, leaving the EU is profoundly unconservative?
It depends. And if that answer sounds like a cop-out, it's not; it's the reason why the Tories were so split.
In principle, leaving the EU was disruptive; in practice, it may have been the least disruptive in the medium term but that's a judgement call and people's judgement differs.
On the one hand, the EU Single Market stimulates trade and delivers growth and of course leaving is inherently disruptive; on the other, the limited democracy, the inadequate governance and the perpetual crises might mean that leaving sooner rather than later was the better option if EU reform was both necessary and unachievable - or unachievable at an acceptable price.
In some ways, it's similar to the early Thatcher era, which undoubtedly caused severe problems and split the Tories for that same reason - but the cost of not acting was seen by her (and probably by history now) as being higher still. Once she strayed into disruption for ideological reasons - the Poll Tax for example - she was dumped.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
You don't want to admit it, but it's the truth. There are mountains of evidence, not least the arguments put forward by people on here when they dmsupport immigration by pointing out it has only meant a tiny decrease in wages at the lower end since 2004, as if that was good news
Can you supply any evidence? It's an area of deep interest to me and I'd been keen to see it.
Do you really need me to do that for you? Or is that code for 'I don't believe you, you're making it up to support a prejudice'?
If it really was an area of deep interest to you, you surely would have seen the evidence
Nope, I'm happy to see the evidence.
I have been concerned about the scale of immigration for many years, although I have personally profited from it.
In the spirit of Christmas transparency, I am also an immigrant (from New Zealand, with a British passport via my U.K.-born father).
I have seen studies suggesting a minuscule effect on wages of some trades. But not enough to really write home about.
Just google 'immigration affect on wages'. The pro immigration argument is that it's only a 1% decrease over 12 years. Hooray get the Lambrusco out!!
Not significant in the bigger mix.
Says someone who does well out of it!
Flooding the labour market with cheap competition so the poorest people get a 12 year pay freeze turns out to be unpopular with the poor but popular with the rich - what a shocker!
You're not really dealing in fact. By the very evidence you cite, it's not true that "flooding the market" has created a 12 year pay freeze. There are numerous factors with a much larger impact.
Since anecdotes are accepted evidence this morning, how about this one? The citizens of other EU countries my company employs are 100% taxpayers, 100% educated to masters level and 0% benefits claimants. Not that it matters to me but they are 100% white and as far as I know, 0% Muslim.
It didn't prevent one of them being verbally abused on a bus shortly after the referendum for speaking in a language other than English.
Instead of trying to desperately pick holes you could come up with some counter evidence. You know, just a suggestion.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
You don't want to admit it, but it's the truth. There are mountains of evidence, not least the arguments put forward by people on here when they dmsupport immigration by pointing out it has only meant a tiny decrease in wages at the lower end since 2004, as if that was good news
Can you supply any evidence? It's an area of deep interest to me and I'd been keen to see it.
Do you really need me to do that for you? Or is that code for 'I don't believe you, you're making it up to support a prejudice'?
If it really was an area of deep interest to you, you surely would have seen the evidence
In the spirit of Christmas transparency, I am also an immigrant (from New Zealand, with a British passport via my U.K.-born father).
I have seen studies suggesting a minuscule effect on wages of some trades. But not enough to really write home about.
Just google 'immigration affect on wages'. The pro immigration argument is that it's only a 1% decrease over 12 years. Hooray get the Lambrusco out!!
Not significant in the bigger mix.
Says someone who does well out of it!
Flooding the labour market with cheap competition so the poorest people get a 12 year pay freeze turns out to be unpopular with the poor but popular with the rich - what a shocker!
You're not really dealing in fact. By the very evidence you cite, it's not true that "flooding the market" has created a 12 year pay freeze. There are numerous factors with a much larger impact.
Nothing will convince you so it's not worth bothering. It doesn't adversely affect you so don't worry about it
So if uncontrolled immigration is so good for the economy why has the decade of uncontrolled immigrated seen stagnant GDP per capita, over a trillion pound increase in government debt and rising inequality?
As to the NHS it managed to function well enough before uncontrolled immigration - are you saying without uncontrolled immigration it would grind to a halt?
1) Correlation not causation. The rise in government debt sprang from a recession deeper than the 1930s and weak wages growth partly comes from that and partly from poor productivity, lack of investment in infrastructure, poor skills of the native-born population and an unlimited willingness on the part of soil disant deficit hawks to spunk huge sums of money instead on hobby horse projects like Brexit.
2) As you know, that was not what I wrote.
Something like 75% of the nurses on the ward my other half was on were immigrants (I saw only two white English nurses, one of whom had a Jewish surname, so if anything I'm understating the value of immigration to that ward). Perhaps you have every faith in the British state setting up a bureaucratic infrastructure that will allow for that flow to continue unimpeded at all times without affecting service standards at a time when NHS funding is being kept under lock tight restraint. Quaint.
1) So you won't answer the question - I'll ask it again.
If uncontrolled immigration is so good for the economy why has the decade of uncontrolled immigrated seen stagnant GDP per capita, over a trillion pound increase in government debt and rising inequality
All the reasons you try to give applied also before the era of uncontrolled immigration and yet there wasn't stagnant GDP per capita or a trillion pounds of government borrowing.
In fact the uncontrolled immigration you support has had damaging effects on productivity, wages growth, capital investment and infrastructure.
2) You may not have wrote it but you are a supporter of uncontrolled immigration.
You are assuming that your London NHS experiences are the same as those for the rest of the country. You need to broaden your outlook and see what happens among the people you refer to as 'carrot crunchers'.
And please explain how the NHS managed to operate before the era of uncontrolled immigration.
You seem to have lost the ability to read. The worst recession in 80 years played the starring part.
So it was all the fault of the recession.
Strange that other periods of recession haven't had those effects then or for that matter the 1930s depression.
You seem to have lost the ability for open minded thought.
If you must stay in your Islington safe zone then might I suggest you offer your services to Jeremy and Emily.
In turn, years of pent up mistrust of the EU (stoked by right wing media and politicians of all stripes), has curdled into a feeling that it is the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels who are responsible for the immigration.
A single vote was the only thing necessary to "take back control" (a stroke of genius by the Leave campaign).
So... now that we have thrown the EU away, what will the problems be blamed on next? Because the problems are still with us even if the EU is not. Who is next for scapegoating?
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
You don't want to admit it, but it's the truth. There are mountains of evidence, not least the arguments put forward by people on here when they dmsupport immigration by pointing out it has only meant a tiny decrease in wages at the lower end since 2004, as if that was good news
Can you supply any evidence? It's an area of deep interest to me and I'd been keen to see it.
Do you really need me to do that for you? Or is that code for 'I don't believe you, you're making it up to support a prejudice'?
If it really was an area of deep interest to you, you surely would have seen the evidence
In the spirit of Christmas transparency, I am also an immigrant (from New Zealand, with a British passport via my U.K.-born father).
I have seen studies suggesting a minuscule effect on wages of some trades. But not enough to really write home about.
Just google 'immigration affect on wages'. The pro immigration argument is that it's only a 1% decrease over 12 years. Hooray get the Lambrusco out!!
Not significant in the bigger mix.
Says someone who does well out of it!
Flooding the labour market with cheap competition so the poorest people get a 12 year pay freeze turns out to be unpopular with the poor but popular with the rich - what a shocker!
You're not really dealing in fact. By the very evidence you cite, it's not true that "flooding the market" has created a 12 year pay freeze. There are numerous factors with a much larger impact.
Nothing will convince you so it's not worth bothering. It doesn't adversely affect you so don't worry about it
Well I've no idea what your situation but you seem pretty unpersuadable yourself.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
Can you supply any evidence? It's an area of deep interest to me and I'd been keen to see it.
Do you really need me to do that for you? Or is that code for 'I don't believe you, you're making it up to support a prejudice'?
If it really was an area of deep interest to you, you surely would have seen the evidence
In the spirit of Christmas transparency, I am also an immigrant (from New Zealand, with a British passport via my U.K.-born father).
I have seen studies suggesting a minuscule effect on wages of some trades. But not enough to really write home about.
Just google 'immigration affect on wages'. The pro immigration argument is that it's only a 1% decrease over 12 years. Hooray get the Lambrusco out!!
Not significant in the bigger mix.
Says someone who does well out of it!
Flooding the labour market with cheap competition so the poorest people get a 12 year pay freeze turns out to be unpopular with the poor but popular with the rich - what a shocker!
created a 12 year pay freeze. There are numerous factors with a much larger impact.
Nothing will convince you so it's not worth bothering. It doesn't adversely affect you so don't worry about it
Well I've no idea what your situation but you seem pretty unpersuadable yourself.
You've offered no data, just insult.
On the evidence, I assume you're just a troll.
Are you stark raving mad?
I linked to a pro immigration report that shows a 1% decrease in pay over 12 years at the lower end of the market!!!
You choose to believe that it occurring exactly with the biggest net migration ever, mainly from poorer EU countries, is just coincidence
Flooding the labour market with cheap competition so the poorest people get a 12 year pay freeze turns out to be unpopular with the poor but popular with the rich - what a shocker!
Maybe you have other data in mind when you talk about a pay freeze but just to be clear, the numbers up thread aren't saying anything about a 12-year pay freeze. They don't mean, "immigration results in wages growing at -1% over 8 years for the sector that does worst out of it", they mean, "immigration results in wages ending up 1% less than they would otherwise have been for the sector that does worst out of it". If the non-immigration picture is +1% growth over that period then that would mean a pay freeze (as opposed to extremely minimal growth), but if it's +10% then the result is +9%.
Also note that this is for "wages for a typical job in sector x" rather than "wages for person x". Since you're simultaneously increasing wages in sectors y and z, some of the people who would otherwise be working in sector x will move to y and z, and end up in the beneficiary group.
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
You don't want to admit it, but it's the truth. There are mountains of evidence, not least the arguments put forward by people on here when they dmsupport immigration by pointing out it has only meant a tiny decrease in wages at the lower end since 2004, as if that was good news
Can you supply any evidence? It's an area of deep interest to me and I'd been keen to see it.
Do you really need me to do that for you? Or is that code for 'I don't believe you, you're making it up to support a prejudice'?
If it really was an area of deep interest to you, you surely would have seen the evidence
In the spirit of Christmas transparency, I am also an immigrant (from New Zealand, with a British passport via my U.K.-born father).
I have seen studies suggesting a minuscule effect on wages of some trades. But not enough to really write home about.
Just google 'immigration affect on wages'. The pro immigration argument is that it's only a 1% decrease over 12 years. Hooray get the Lambrusco out!!
Not significant in the bigger mix.
Says someone who does well out of it!
Flooding the labour market with cheap competition so the poorest people get a 12 year pay freeze turns out to be unpopular with the poor but popular with the rich - what a shocker!
created a 12 year pay freeze. There are numerous factors with a much larger impact.
Nothing will convince you so it's not worth bothering. It doesn't adversely affect you so don't worry about it
Well I've no idea what your situation but you seem pretty unpersuadable yourself.
You've offered no data, just insult.
On the evidence, I assume you're just a troll.
Are you stark raving mad?
I linked to a pro immigration report that shows a 1% decrease over 12 years at the lower end of the market!!!
Yep and it's insufficient evidence for your claim (as far as I can work out) that immigration is the core reason for wage stagnation. It's just a factor and frankly a marginal one.
In keeping with the current politics, especially of the Trumpian variety, can I recommend the following academic paper to forumites
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning ...
The beginning of the introduction is particularly interesting
In On Bullshit, the philosopher Frankfurt (2005) defines bullshit as something that is designed to impress but that was constructed absent direct concern for the truth. This distinguishes bullshit from lying, which entails a deliberate manipulation and subversion of truth (as understood by the liar).
Flooding the labour market with cheap competition so the poorest people get a 12 year pay freeze turns out to be unpopular with the poor but popular with the rich - what a shocker!
Maybe you have other data in mind when you talk about a pay freeze but just to be clear, the numbers up thread aren't saying anything about a 12-year pay freeze. They don't mean, "immigration results in wages growing at -1% over 8 years for the sector that does worst out of it", they mean, "immigration results in wages ending up 1% less than they would otherwise have been for the sector that does worst out of it". If the non-immigration picture is +1% growth over that period then that would mean a pay freeze, but if it's +10% then the result is +9%.
Also note that this is for "wages for a typical job in sector x" rather than "wages for person x". Since you're simultaneously increasing wages in sectors y and z, some of the people who would otherwise be working in sector x will move to y and z, and end up in the beneficiary group.
Yes. I assumed this was obvious, but either Isam doesn't understand or, more likely, doesn't want to.
Flooding the labour market with cheap competition so the poorest people get a 12 year pay freeze turns out to be unpopular with the poor but popular with the rich - what a shocker!
Maybe you have other data in mind when you talk about a pay freeze but just to be clear, the numbers up thread aren't saying anything about a 12-year pay freeze. They don't mean, "immigration results in wages growing at -1% over 8 years for the sector that does worst out of it", they mean, "immigration results in wages ending up 1% less than they would otherwise have been for the sector that does worst out of it". If the non-immigration picture is +1% growth over that period then that would mean a pay freeze, but if it's +10% then the result is +9%.
Also note that this is for "wages for a typical job in sector x" rather than "wages for person x". Since you're simultaneously increasing wages in sectors y and z, some of the people who would otherwise be working in sector x will move to y and z, and end up in the beneficiary group.
Yes. I assumed this was obvious, but either Islam doesn't understand or, more likely, doesn't want to.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
In short, mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why politicians are so in favour of it and cast aspersions upon anyone who tells the truth about it
I didn't say that. There's very little evidence to support that (if any). What we can say is that we are relying on immigration instead of training and developing our own people. We could have both, or neither.
You don't want to admit it, but it's the truth. There are mountains of evidence, not least the arguments put forward by people on here when they dmsupport immigration by pointing out it has only meant a tiny decrease in wages at the lower end since 2004, as if that was good news
Can you supply any evidence? It's an area of deep interest to me and I'd been keen to see it.
Do you really need me to do that for you? Or is that code for 'I don't believe you, you're making it up to support a prejudice'?
If it really was an area of deep interest to you, you surely would have seen the evidence
In the spirit of Christmas transparency, I am also an immigrant (from New Zealand, with a British passport via my U.K.-born father).
I have seen studies suggesting a minuscule effect on wages of some trades. But not enough to really write home about.
Just google 'immigration affect on wages'. The pro immigration argument is that it's only a 1% decrease over 12 years. Hooray get the Lambrusco out!!
Not significant in the bigger mix.
Says someone who does well out of it!
You're not really dealing in fact. By the very evidence you cite, it's not true that "flooding the market" has created a 12 year pay freeze. There are numerous factors with a much larger impact.
Nothing will convince you so it's not worth bothering. It doesn't adversely affect you so don't worry about it
Well I've no idea what your situation but you seem pretty unpersuadable yourself.
You've offered no data, just insult.
On the evidence, I assume you're just a troll.
We've had a video of Enoch Powell, what more evidence do you want?
A very good article from Mr H and some interesting comments below the line.
From a Labour perspective, I believe we need to revisit the Blue Labour ideas in order to focus the party on working class communities around the country and escape the cliché of the Islington bubble.
There was an item on the local news the other day featuring the annual Christmas dinner for ex-miners in Kellingley. Of course, now there are only ex-miners in Kellingley, but the community is still pulling together. Let that be an inspiration to the Labour Party. It's why we were founded, after all.
Flooding the labour market with cheap competition so the poorest people get a 12 year pay freeze turns out to be unpopular with the poor but popular with the rich - what a shocker!
Maybe you have other data in mind when you talk about a pay freeze but just to be clear, the numbers up thread aren't saying anything about a 12-year pay freeze. They don't mean, "immigration results in wages growing at -1% over 8 years for the sector that does worst out of it", they mean, "immigration results in wages ending up 1% less than they would otherwise have been for the sector that does worst out of it". If the non-immigration picture is +1% growth over that period then that would mean a pay freeze (as opposed to extremely minimal growth), but if it's +10% then the result is +9%.
Also note that this is for "wages for a typical job in sector x" rather than "wages for person x". Since you're simultaneously increasing wages in sectors y and z, some of the people who would otherwise be working in sector x will move to y and z, and end up in the beneficiary group.
Ok 'relative' pay freeze then, get the Champers out.
Oh and less housing, more strain on services, all of which affect the poorest
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
t it
d have both, or neither.
You don't want to admit it, but it's the truth. There are mountains of evidence, not least the arguments put forward by people on here when they dmsupport immigration by pointing out it has only meant a tiny decrease in wages at the lower end since 2004, as if that was good news
Can you supply any evidence? It's an area of deep interest to me and I'd been keen to see it.
Do you really need me to do that for you? Or is that code for 'I don't believe you, you're making it up to support a prejudice'?
If it really was an area of deep interest to you, you surely would have seen the evidence
In the spirit of Christmas transparency, I am also an immigrant (from New Zealand, with a British passport via my U.K.-born father).
I have seen studies suggesting a minuscule effect on wages of some trades. But not enough to really write home about.
Just google 'immigration affect on wages'. The pro immigration argument is that it's only a 1% decrease over 12 years. Hooray get the Lambrusco out!!
Not significant in the bigger mix.
Says someone who does well out of it!
You're not really dealing in fact. By the very evidence you cite, it's not true that "flooding the market" has created a 12 year pay freeze. There are numerous factors with a much larger impact.
Nothing will convince you so it's not worth bothering. It doesn't adversely affect you so don't worry about it
Well I've no idea what your situation but you seem pretty unpersuadable yourself.
You've offered no data, just insult.
On the evidence, I assume you're just a troll.
We've had a video of Enoch Powell, what more evidence do you want?
So in effect what the three people arguing against me here are saying is that flooding the market with cheap labour doesn't push down wages in those occupations.
Rather entertaining for us who instantly got what Trump was doing, whilst others quibbled.
America First First Boeing and now Lockheed Martin. We keep on winning! #TrumpEffect https://t.co/cv3R4m11FE
Summoning the CEOs of major industries and bullying them into making statements like this is the kind of thing petty dictators do.
In the end, it subverts corporate governance, public policy process, and shareholder's interests.
It makes a change from corporatism.
Not really, it is itself a form of corporatism. Trump can summon Boeing, but not the hundreds of thousands of smaller businesses that power the real economy.
Forcing big company executives to be accountable to their major client is a good step, even if the means are unconventional. I wish BAe could be brought to book over the disgraceful carrier contracts. A little bit of embarrassment for the executives isn't going to stop them supplying the government in the long term and if it brings us value for money then it's a step I'm happy for the government to take.
Ok 'relative' pay freeze then, get the Champers out.
I know we have a lot of bullshit political spin on this site but even British politicians would draw the line at phrasing "has no effect on wages" as "causes a relative pay freeze".
I see that Israel has said it will ignore yet another UN resolution and appears to be breaking diplomatic relations with the totalitarian despotism that is New Zealand.
Ok 'relative' pay freeze then, get the Champers out.
I know we have a lot of bullshit political spin on this site but even British politicians would draw the line at phrasing "has no effect on wages" as "causes a relative pay freeze".
Well the truth, according to the source that is pro mass immigration, is 'a negative effect on wages'
A very good article from Mr H and some interesting comments below the line.
From a Labour perspective, I believe we need to revisit the Blue Labour ideas in order to focus the party on working class communities around the country and escape the cliché of the Islington bubble.
There was an item on the local news the other day featuring the annual Christmas dinner for ex-miners in Kellingley. Of course, now there are only ex-miners in Kellingley, but the community is still pulling together. Let that be an inspiration to the Labour Party. It's why we were founded, after all.
First Labour needs to work out what it is for and who it represents. It cant adopt a Blue Labour policy platform without a large chunk of its metropolitan Guardianista wing throwing a wobbly, and yet without being prepared to piss them off to some degree it has no chance of a recovery in its northern heartlands. Is it even possible to keep two groups with almost nothing in common aside from hating the Tories on board when there are alternative offerings ?
There is also a presentational issue, Labour need a few less Lady Nugee's, Diana Abbots and JC's around the shadow cabinet table and a few more Jack Straw, Alistair Darling, David Blunkett sort of people.
Ok 'relative' pay freeze then, get the Champers out.
I know we have a lot of bullshit political spin on this site but even British politicians would draw the line at phrasing "has no effect on wages" as "causes a relative pay freeze".
Well the truth, according to the source that is pro mass immigration, is 'a negative effect on wages'
No, you're still spinning. The truth according to that source is "a positive effect on wages". Within that, in a particular sector, a very small negative effect on wages.
Ok 'relative' pay freeze then, get the Champers out.
I know we have a lot of bullshit political spin on this site but even British politicians would draw the line at phrasing "has no effect on wages" as "causes a relative pay freeze".
Well the truth, according to the source that is pro mass immigration, is 'a negative effect on wages'
No, you're still spinning. The truth according to that source is "a positive effect on wages". Within that, in a particular sector, a very small negative effect on wages.
I am not spinning, I accept that it maybe overall net positive, that's why I say it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
I am not spinning, I accept that it maybe overall net positive, that's why I say it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
This may or may not be true, but it isn't justified by the evidence you've quoted. The poor aren't uniquely in that sector, and they can and do move into different sectors.
I am not spinning, I accept that it maybe overall net positive, that's why I say it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
This may or may not be true, but it isn't justified by the evidence you've quoted. The poor aren't uniquely in that sector, and they can and do move into different sectors.
The poor aren't uniquely in the lowest paid jobs?
On the broader point, do you really believe that flooding the market with a cheaper option doesn't bring prices down?
I see that Israel has said it will ignore yet another UN resolution and appears to be breaking diplomatic relations with the totalitarian despotism that is New Zealand.
Shows how weak Obama's foreign policy stance is if he doesn't have the muscle to back Israel any more.
We have immigration that is both uncontrolled and unprepared for.
Even worse that governments far from putting in place the necessary housing, infrastructure, public services etc have instead repeatedly lied about the scale of immigration.
This is as much the problem as anything else. The public know that Labour lied through their teeth about immigration because their own people have said so, in the same statements as they heard such bon mots as "rubbing the Right's face in diversity".
They also strongly suspect that the Tories lied through their teeth about immigration because of all the evasions and obfuscations when it turned out the number of NI numbers issued was vastly larger than the number of immigrants supposedly arriving.
It can't come as a great surprise that the public therefore conclude that the number must be much larger than anyone is prepared to admit, otherwise politicians would not be so coy about it. If the politicians are coy about it, it must be a matter for concern, and so the public are duly concerned.
Coming clean about the numbers, demonstrably investing a commensurate amount into health, education and housing would go a significant way to calming peoples nerves. What it wont do is get around the basic problem of lots of older and poorer people with possibly a rather parochial outlook being very uncomfortable about lots of unfamiliar languages being spoken in their towns, and lots of buildings connected with unfamiliar cultures and religions being built near where they live.
Indeed.
My 'supermarket test' is, I think, a good indicator not just of the change brought by immigration but the continuous nature of it.
A decade ago young Polish ** blokes became noticeable among supermarket customers, a couple of years later it was young Polish couples, then it was young Polish couples with children. In the last couple of years I've noticed what looked like Polish grandparents with young children and whole families of East European Roma in the supermarket. What the next five years will bring I've no idea but I don't doubt that there will be new groupings to see.
I'm far enough up the socioeconomic scale that I'm probably a net beneficiary from immigration but I know many people who aren't as fortunate as I am and they are definitely losing out from the effects of immigration.
** 'Polish' also includes Lithuanians, Latvians etc
We have immigration that is both uncontrolled and unprepared for.
Even worse that governments far from putting in place the necessary housing, infrastructure, public services etc have instead repeatedly lied about the scale of immigration.
This is as much the problem as anything else. The public know that Labour lied through their teeth about immigration because their own people have said so, in the same statements as they heard such bon mots as "rubbing the Right's face in diversity".
They also strongly suspect that the Tories lied through their teeth about immigration because of all the evasions and obfuscations when it turned out the number of NI numbers issued was vastly larger than the number of immigrants supposedly arriving.
It can't come as a great surprise that the public therefore conclude that the number must be much larger than anyone is prepared to admit, otherwise politicians would not be so coy about it. If the politicians are coy about it, it must be a matter for concern, and so the public are duly concerned.
Coming clean about the numbers, demonstrably investing a commensurate amount into health, education and housing would go a significant way to calming peoples nerves. What it wont do is get around the basic problem of lots of older and poorer people with possibly a rather parochial outlook being very uncomfortable about lots of unfamiliar languages being spoken in their towns, and lots of buildings connected with unfamiliar cultures and religions being built near where they live.
Indeed.
My 'supermarket test' is, I think, a good indicator not just of the change brought by immigration but the continuous nature of it.
A decade ago young Polish ** blokes became noticeable among supermarket customers, a couple of years later it was young Polish couples, then it was young Polish couples with children. In the last couple of years I've noticed what looked like Polish grandparents with young children and whole families of East European Roma in the supermarket. What the next five years will bring I've no idea but I don't doubt that there will be new groupings to see.
I'm far enough up the socioeconomic scale that I'm probably a net beneficiary from immigration but I know many people who aren't as fortunate as I am and they are definitely losing out from the effects of immigration.
** 'Polish' also includes Lithuanians, Latvians etc
If those people had come from another part of the UK - say Welsh speakers from Caernarfon - would they also have caused local people to lose out?
If those people had come from another part of the UK - say Welsh speakers from Caernarfon - would they also have caused local people to lose out?
This sounds to me like a preamble for an internationalist gambit, where you are going to tell us there isnt any real difference between people coming to do a job from Caernarfon than there is from Krakow, although most people start being a bit coy when attempts are made to extend the comparison to say Lahore.
The problem with the EU borders position is it is no more defensible to say its fine for unlimited people to come from Eastern Europe than it is to say they should be equally free to come from anywhere is Africa or Asia - of course the country might be a little crowded by then.
If those people had come from another part of the UK - say Welsh speakers from Caernarfon - would they also have caused local people to lose out?
This sounds to me like a preamble for an internationalist gambit, where you are going to tell us there isnt any real difference between people coming to do a job from Caernarfon than there is from Krakow, although most people start being a bit coy when attempts are made to extend the comparison to say Lahore.
Wow. That comment comparing Wales to Poland wins the prize for the most hilarious of the thread so far.
Failing the recognise the problems with comparing parts of the same country with almost a thousand years of shared sovereignty, the same currency, common culture and language and a broadly integrated economy with fiscal transfers from one area to another, to a country on the other side of the continent with few (if any) of those commonalities demands a special type of political myopia.
Wow. That comment comparing Wales to Poland wins the prize for the most hilarious of the thread so far.
Failing the recognise the problems with comparing parts of the same country with almost a thousand years of shared sovereignty, the same currency, common culture and language and a broadly integrated economy with fiscal transfers from one area to another, to a country on the other side of the continent with few (if any) of those commonalities demands a special type of political myopia.
If those people had come from another part of the UK - say Welsh speakers from Caernarfon - would they also have caused local people to lose out?
This sounds to me like a preamble for an internationalist gambit, where you are going to tell us there isnt any real difference between people coming to do a job from Caernarfon than there is from Krakow, although most people start being a bit coy when attempts are made to extend the comparison to say Lahore.
Care to try answering the question?
It wont change the demand for labour within the country one jot. The wages might drop slightly in one area, and rise slightly in another as supply tightens there. Adding supply to a system is going to make wages drop, moving it around within a system won't. So like I said the only way your argument is coherent is if you try and argue the system is the whole of the EU - and the public disagreed with you on that six months ago.
It's when people think saying 'lump of labour' magically makes the laws of supply and demand disappear - just because other variables can help an adjustment doesn't mean the obvious and predominant impact isn't still obvious and predominant.
I am not spinning, I accept that it maybe overall net positive, that's why I say it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
This may or may not be true, but it isn't justified by the evidence you've quoted. The poor aren't uniquely in that sector, and they can and do move into different sectors.
The poor aren't uniquely in the lowest paid jobs?
They don't uniquely work in unskilled and semi-skilled *services*, no. And you should still count what happens to these people if they move out of those jobs into better jobs. They may in the process stop being poor, which is a good thing. Immigration (like other forms of trade) helps make this happen.
On the broader point, do you really believe that flooding the market with a cheaper option doesn't bring prices down?
Of that particular thing, that would usually be the direct effect. But the story doesn't end there, that particular thing is part of an economy of other things, grouped together in supply chains, and if you can make one part of the chain cheaper, that increases the value of other parts. Humans aren't perfectly interchangeable commodities, so if you bring in somebody who can do task X more cheaply, they can't necessarily do task Y more cheaply, and Y has now become more valuable. That works out well for the person who ends up doing task Y, even if they were originally doing task X.
PS. We could be having exactly the same conversation over automation.
Comments
And you presumably realise that the taxpaying migrants are in the main short-term fruit and asparagus pickers? Strip them out, and the tax surplus disappears.
Typhoons get their name from Typhon, one of the most terrifying of the Greek mythological monsters. He beat Zeus up and tore off the Olympian's muscles, whilst the rest of the gods ran off to Ethiopia. Someone (sorry, forget who) retrieved Zeus' muscles, sewed them back on, and in the rematch Zeus dropped a mountain on Typhon (Mount Etna).
Incidentally, there's a phenomenon called volcanic lightning, which looks absolutely fantastic, and rather echoes the Typhon/Zeus fights.
America First
First Boeing and now Lockheed Martin. We keep on winning!
#TrumpEffect https://t.co/cv3R4m11FE
You made an assertion. I asked for evidence. You gave me cherry picked nonsense from a pro-EU pressure group and for some reason when I call you out on this expect me to disprove your cherry picked nonsense.
If uncontrolled immigration is so good for the economy why has the decade of uncontrolled immigrated seen stagnant GDP per capita, over a trillion pound increase in government debt and rising inequality
All the reasons you try to give applied also before the era of uncontrolled immigration and yet there wasn't stagnant GDP per capita or a trillion pounds of government borrowing.
In fact the uncontrolled immigration you support has had damaging effects on productivity, wages growth, capital investment and infrastructure.
2) You may not have wrote it but you are a supporter of uncontrolled immigration.
You are assuming that your London NHS experiences are the same as those for the rest of the country. You need to broaden your outlook and see what happens among the people you refer to as 'carrot crunchers'.
And please explain how the NHS managed to operate before the era of uncontrolled immigration.
Net net, migrants are an clear boon to the economy because we are importing skilled, young taxpayers.
Of course within that there is the question of how welfare is dispensed and you cannot accurately describe the whole picture without pointing out the considerable generosity (from, say, a Romanian perspective) of our in-work benefits.
Therefore, both advocates and critics of immigration are correct in their core arguments.
We could design, and could have designed a system that was "fairer". But we didn't.
Likewise, the dependence on the NHS on immigration. Generally, the right has been happy with this because it's cheaper than training British natives. The left because of the virtue of diversity.
We could have designed a system that supported more indigenous skill development. But we didn't.
The one potential benefit of Brexit, and even Trumpery, is the opportunity to reconsider the tired debates that have held us back. We haven't seen that yet, though.
Nurse 1 voted Leave because immigration was placing too much strain on the NHS
Nurse 2 was a Slovakian-Portuguese who said A&E should not be free as it was full of drunks, drug addicts and girls taking pills because their bf dumped them
Doctor was a young Asian man who said the NHS should be privatised but no politician had the guts to risk losing votes by suggesting it
Moses' account is not "anecdata", it is solid and convincing evidence which greatly damages your case.
Christopher
I've just visited my sister's with my dog Bella. Bella has now been permanently banned due to what we'll call "The Christmas Tree Incident"
The broader point, that a host of businesses and public services are dependent on immigration, of which the EU accounts for 50%, is true.
Anyway, must be off.
Anyway, LM think they're reducing the per-unit cost of the F35 all the time (at east according to their own figures. And that was *before* Trump became pres-elect.
If the EU is correct in its approach, then surely there's only one way to tackle these problems: an eventual one-world polity/government: uniform laws, uniform taxes, uniform benefits wherever one lives in the world.
Trouble is the EU hasn't really solved the democratic problem, and that problem would become ever greater as the new improved Single World Market spread its wings over more & more nations.
Good morning, everyone.
If it really was an area of deep interest to you, you surely would have seen the evidence
In the end, it subverts corporate governance, public policy process, and shareholder's interests.
Even worse that governments far from putting in place the necessary housing, infrastructure, public services etc have instead repeatedly lied about the scale of immigration.
Consequences have included downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on housing prices/costs.
As David Herdson points out there has been a wealth shift from the 90% to the 0.1%.
I have been concerned about the scale of immigration for many years, although I have personally profited from it.
In the spirit of Christmas transparency, I am also an immigrant (from New Zealand, with a British passport via my U.K.-born father).
I have seen studies suggesting a minuscule effect on wages of some trades. But not enough to really write home about.
I think he's breaking dozens of liberal elite and fat cat eggs - hence their totally OTT reaction. Watershed stuff like Brexit with knobs on.
It's a phenomenon that exists across the entire West and only countries with very redistributive policies have managed to avoid it.
"And you presumably realise that the taxpaying migrants are in the main short-term fruit and asparagus pickers? Strip them out, and the tax surplus disappears."
https://youtu.be/RHVOYG_VOLE
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/how-small-small-impact-immigration-uk-wages#.WF5iLLXfXYU
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/
They also strongly suspect that the Tories lied through their teeth about immigration because of all the evasions and obfuscations when it turned out the number of NI numbers issued was vastly larger than the number of immigrants supposedly arriving.
It can't come as a great surprise that the public therefore conclude that the number must be much larger than anyone is prepared to admit, otherwise politicians would not be so coy about it. If the politicians are coy about it, it must be a matter for concern, and so the public are duly concerned.
Coming clean about the numbers, demonstrably investing a commensurate amount into health, education and housing would go a significant way to calming peoples nerves. What it wont do is get around the basic problem of lots of older and poorer people with possibly a rather parochial outlook being very uncomfortable about lots of unfamiliar languages being spoken in their towns, and lots of buildings connected with unfamiliar cultures and religions being built near where they live.
More people create competition for work hence a downward pressure on pay rates and more demand for housing hence an upward pressure on house price/costs.
Those are simple supply-and-demand facts.
And those two things cause a wealth shift up the socioeconomic scale.
Trump can summon Boeing, but not the hundreds of thousands of smaller businesses that power the real economy.
Flooding the labour market with cheap competition so the poorest people get a 12 year pay freeze turns out to be unpopular with the poor but popular with the rich - what a shocker!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-38427462
Though I fear that Boko Haram, like ISIS, will pop up elsewhere.
In principle, leaving the EU was disruptive; in practice, it may have been the least disruptive in the medium term but that's a judgement call and people's judgement differs.
On the one hand, the EU Single Market stimulates trade and delivers growth and of course leaving is inherently disruptive; on the other, the limited democracy, the inadequate governance and the perpetual crises might mean that leaving sooner rather than later was the better option if EU reform was both necessary and unachievable - or unachievable at an acceptable price.
In some ways, it's similar to the early Thatcher era, which undoubtedly caused severe problems and split the Tories for that same reason - but the cost of not acting was seen by her (and probably by history now) as being higher still. Once she strayed into disruption for ideological reasons - the Poll Tax for example - she was dumped.
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/812626148630863872
By the very evidence you cite, it's not true that "flooding the market" has created a 12 year pay freeze. There are numerous factors with a much larger impact.
It didn't prevent one of them being verbally abused on a bus shortly after the referendum for speaking in a language other than English.
Strange that other periods of recession haven't had those effects then or for that matter the 1930s depression.
You seem to have lost the ability for open minded thought.
If you must stay in your Islington safe zone then might I suggest you offer your services to Jeremy and Emily.
But did he shave?
You've offered no data, just insult.
On the evidence, I assume you're just a troll.
I linked to a pro immigration report that shows a 1% decrease in pay over 12 years at the lower end of the market!!!
You choose to believe that it occurring exactly with the biggest net migration ever, mainly from poorer EU countries, is just coincidence
Also note that this is for "wages for a typical job in sector x" rather than "wages for person x". Since you're simultaneously increasing wages in sectors y and z, some of the people who would otherwise be working in sector x will move to y and z, and end up in the beneficiary group.
When I pointed this out, you just get stroppy.
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning ...
http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf
The beginning of the introduction is particularly interesting
In On Bullshit, the philosopher Frankfurt (2005) defines bullshit as something that is designed to impress but that was constructed absent direct concern for the truth. This distinguishes bullshit from lying, which entails a deliberate manipulation and subversion of truth (as understood by the liar).
From a Labour perspective, I believe we need to revisit the Blue Labour ideas in order to focus the party on working class communities around the country and escape the cliché of the Islington bubble.
There was an item on the local news the other day featuring the annual Christmas dinner for ex-miners in Kellingley. Of course, now there are only ex-miners in Kellingley, but the community is still pulling together. Let that be an inspiration to the Labour Party. It's why we were founded, after all.
Oh and less housing, more strain on services, all of which affect the poorest
Impossible
"Perhaps Marx had a point after all"
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx.
There is also a presentational issue, Labour need a few less Lady Nugee's, Diana Abbots and JC's around the shadow cabinet table and a few more Jack Straw, Alistair Darling, David Blunkett sort of people.
Is that a polite way of saying 'Suck it up, losers!'?
On the broader point, do you really believe that flooding the market with a cheaper option doesn't bring prices down?
My 'supermarket test' is, I think, a good indicator not just of the change brought by immigration but the continuous nature of it.
A decade ago young Polish ** blokes became noticeable among supermarket customers, a couple of years later it was young Polish couples, then it was young Polish couples with children. In the last couple of years I've noticed what looked like Polish grandparents with young children and whole families of East European Roma in the supermarket. What the next five years will bring I've no idea but I don't doubt that there will be new groupings to see.
I'm far enough up the socioeconomic scale that I'm probably a net beneficiary from immigration but I know many people who aren't as fortunate as I am and they are definitely losing out from the effects of immigration.
** 'Polish' also includes Lithuanians, Latvians etc
It's all a bit hectic today isn't it? What you need, is an interlude... https://t.co/HRYOw2XDUm
The problem with the EU borders position is it is no more defensible to say its fine for unlimited people to come from Eastern Europe than it is to say they should be equally free to come from anywhere is Africa or Asia - of course the country might be a little crowded by then.
Failing the recognise the problems with comparing parts of the same country with almost a thousand years of shared sovereignty, the same currency, common culture and language and a broadly integrated economy with fiscal transfers from one area to another, to a country on the other side of the continent with few (if any) of those commonalities demands a special type of political myopia.
It's when people think saying 'lump of labour' magically makes the laws of supply and demand disappear - just because other variables can help an adjustment doesn't mean the obvious and predominant impact isn't still obvious and predominant.
PS. We could be having exactly the same conversation over automation.