But the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017 - 37.5% of what they held. Polls in Scotland are not showing the SNP stronger than in April/May 2017. Labour ,however, are well up on the ratings recorded at that time and level pegging with the Tories. Also there are likely to be many left of centre voters who vote SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster. How do you explain the Labour surge from 1 seat to 7? Even I predicted a mere 4 or 5 - in the face of much lampooning.
Citation required. Scottish Labour are down on their 2017 election result.
Yougov poll May 15th - 18th 2017 had the following - SNP 42 Con 29 Lab 19 LibDem 6 Yougov poll June 1st - 5th 2017 had the results - SNP 41 Con 26 Lab 25 Libdem 6 Actual result June 8h 2017 - SNP 36.9 Con 28.6 Lab 27.1 LibDem 6.8
Thus, the SNP significantly underperformed their poll ratings - as was the case re-Local Elections in Scotland on May 4th 2017 and the Scottish Parliament elections in May 2016.
And in 2015 the SNP outperformed the eve of poll polls and Labour under performed.
Not really . In the month prior to the May 2015 election the polls had the SNP in the range of 48% - 54% . They actually polled just under 50%. Labour was recorded in the range 22% - 26% - and actually polled 24.8%
But the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017 - 37.5% of what they held. Polls in Scotland are not showing the SNP stronger than in April/May 2017. Labour ,however, are well up on the ratings recorded at that time and level pegging with the Tories. Also there are likely to be many left of centre voters who vote SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster. How do you explain the Labour surge from 1 seat to 7? Even I predicted a mere 4 or 5 - in the face of much lampooning.
Citation required. Scottish Labour are down on their 2017 election result.
Yougov poll May 15th - 18th 2017 had the following - SNP 42 Con 29 Lab 19 LibDem 6 Yougov poll June 1st - 5th 2017 had the results - SNP 41 Con 26 Lab 25 Libdem 6 Actual result June 8h 2017 - SNP 36.9 Con 28.6 Lab 27.1 LibDem 6.8
Where Justin may be right is that in FPTP, it is perfectly possible for the SNP to maintain vote share but lose seats through Unionist tactical voting.
E.g., in 2017 it was unclear in Argyll & Bute whether to vote LibDem or Tory if you wished to cast an anti-SNP vote. It is unclear no more.
It took a few general elections in the 1990s for anti-Tory tactical voting to become efficient.
So, I think more SNP seat losses might occur (to all 3 parties), even if the SNP vote percentage is steady.
On the other hand parties may - indeed have - fallen to third place yet subsequently gone on to recover sufficiently to win seats.It,therefore, does not follow that because party X was 3rd in 2017 that that represents the likely position today. Argyll & Bute has had a LibDem MP until recent years and should remain a reasonable prospect for them were their national fortunes to recover.As a result, tactical voters can sometimes be led astray!
It was the former MP who stood for the LibDems in 2017.
He was surely disappointed in what happened, as he fell to third, but he did well enough to prevent anotherTory Gain.
Indeed so - but that does not mean that the LibDems cannot recover there to challenge the SNP in due course. Likewise for Labour in Stirling.
But note how, since we voted Brexit, the issue of immigration has reduced in salience. The problem was we LITERALLY had no control over who came and went, because FoM. Now (the voters presume) we do have control once again, as we are Brexiting. So they are less concerned
There's yer proof that the two issues were linked, and Robert Harris is either stupid. lying or in ridiculous denial.
Some people I have encountered thought that Brexit would mean less Immigrants from the rest of the world as well as Europe. I think that the public who supported Brexit is going to be very disappointed when society continues to change away from the mostly homogenous white population to mixed and in some cases segregated communities that will continue to grow paradoxically even faster due to Brexit!
I agree, in part. Though in fairness the government does now, finally, seem intent on reducing migration quite seriously, from across the world. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you accept the economic cost of this.
I imagine we will still see immigration of around 100,000-200,000 (including students). Still a lot, and enough for most, but way down on the net 350,000+ annually we saw at the peak of the influx.
There's no economic cost to reducing immigration of people who don't work.
Er... foreign students and wealthy self-sufficient immigrants don't work but bring money into the country; most of the others are working and contributing.
Yet the number of immigrants in employment is falling and at a time of record job vacancies.
RCS seems to have done some research on this and how did he describe economic activity rates among immigrants in recent years ?
"Worse and worse and worse" was the phrase I think.
So, are you saying the immigrants are coming here to exploit our benefits system? Quite a few will presumably be partners of workers and focused themselves on child care.
The two categories of immigrants I noted earlier won't be working but do add to the economy. In fact they bring money in to the country.
I agree, in part. Though in fairness the government does now, finally, seem intent on reducing migration quite seriously, from across the world. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you accept the economic cost of this.
I imagine we will still see immigration of around 100,000-200,000 (including students). Still a lot, and enough for most, but way down on the net 350,000+ annually we saw at the peak of the influx.
There's no economic cost to reducing immigration of people who don't work.
Er... foreign students and wealthy self-sufficient immigrants don't work but bring money into the country; most of the others are working and contributing.
Yet the number of immigrants in employment is falling and at a time of record job vacancies.
RCS seems to have done some research on this and how did he describe economic activity rates among immigrants in recent years ?
"Worse and worse and worse" was the phrase I think.
So, are you saying the immigrants are coming here to exploit our benefits system? Quite a few will presumably be partners of workers and focused themselves on child care.
The two categories of immigrants I noted earleir won't be working but do add to the economy. In fact they bring money in to the country.
There have always been foreign students and millionaires who have migrated to this country - is there any reason to believe that those numbers have increased by hundreds of thousands in the last year ?
Now as to dependents moving here then I suspect that is part of the answer - but that demolishes the idea that immigrants only come here to work and don't claim benefits or use public services.
I would also guess there has been a shift in immigrant sources with more recent immigrants less likely to work.
What I would like to see is far more detail as to who is migrating to this country and for what purpose.
Because if what the ONS is showing and what RCS seemed to find is correct then this country's immigration policy is a complete shambles.
I agree, in part. Though in fairness the government does now, finally, seem intent on reducing migration quite seriously, from across the world. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you accept the economic cost of this.
I imagine we will still see immigration of around 100,000-200,000 (including students). Still a lot, and enough for most, but way down on the net 350,000+ annually we saw at the peak of the influx.
There's no economic cost to reducing immigration of people who don't work.
Er... foreign students and wealthy self-sufficient immigrants don't work but bring money into the country; most of the others are working and contributing.
Yet the number of immigrants in employment is falling and at a time of record job vacancies.
RCS seems to have done some research on this and how did he describe economic activity rates among immigrants in recent years ?
"Worse and worse and worse" was the phrase I think.
So, are you saying the immigrants are coming here to exploit our benefits system? Quite a few will presumably be partners of workers and focused themselves on child care.
The two categories of immigrants I noted earleir won't be working but do add to the economy. In fact they bring money in to the country.
There have always been foreign students and millionaires who have migrated to this country - is there any reason to believe that those numbers have increased by hundreds of thousands in the last year ?
Now as to dependents moving here then I suspect that is part of the answer - but that demolishes the idea that immigrants only come here to work and don't claim benefits or use public services.
I would also guess there has been a shift in immigrant sources with more recent immigrants less likely to work.
What I would like to see is far more detail as to who is migrating to this country and for what purpose.
Because if what the ONS is showing and what RCS seemed to find is correct then this country's immigration policy is a complete shambles.
Didn’t the big uptick in immigration come after the restrictions on chain migration were eased in the early Blair years?
I imagine we will still see immigration of around 100,000-200,000 (including students). Still a lot, and enough for most, but way down on the net 350,000+ annually we saw at the peak of the influx.
There's no economic cost to reducing immigration of people who don't work.
Er... foreign students and wealthy self-sufficient immigrants don't work but bring money into the country; most of the others are working and contributing.
Yet the number of immigrants in employment is falling and at a time of record job vacancies.
RCS seems to have done some research on this and how did he describe economic activity rates among immigrants in recent years ?
"Worse and worse and worse" was the phrase I think.
So, are you saying the immigrants are coming here to exploit our benefits system? Quite a few will presumably be partners of workers and focused themselves on child care.
The two categories of immigrants I noted earleir won't be working but do add to the economy. In fact they bring money in to the country.
There have always been foreign students and millionaires who have migrated to this country - is there any reason to believe that those numbers have increased by hundreds of thousands in the last year ?
Now as to dependents moving here then I suspect that is part of the answer - but that demolishes the idea that immigrants only come here to work and don't claim benefits or use public services.
I would also guess there has been a shift in immigrant sources with more recent immigrants less likely to work.
What I would like to see is far more detail as to who is migrating to this country and for what purpose.
Because if what the ONS is showing and what RCS seemed to find is correct then this country's immigration policy is a complete shambles.
Well you could always take a look at the ONS data yourself:
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Students come here, pay fees, contribute to the economy and get no benefits. So that's not a bad thing if that's the source.
However net migration is still in hundreds of thousands and 72k doesn't explain all of it.
There's no economic cost to reducing immigration of people who don't work.
Er... foreign students and wealthy self-sufficient immigrants don't work but bring money into the country; most of the others are working and contributing.
Yet the number of immigrants in employment is falli
So, are you saying the immigrants are coming here to exploit our benefits system? Quite a few will presumably be partners
There have always been foreign students and millionaires who have migrated to this country - is there any reason to believe that those numbers have increased by hundreds of thousands in the last year ?
Now as to dependents moving here then I suspect that is part of the answer - but that demolishes the idea that immigrants only come here to work and don't claim benefits or use public services.
I would also guess there has been a shift in immigrant sources with more recent immigrants less likely to work.
What I would like to see is far more detail as to who is migrating to this country and for what purpose.
Because if what the ONS is showing and what RCS seemed to find is correct then this country's immigration policy is a complete shambles.
Well you could always take a look at the ONS data yourself:
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Though in the accompanying notes did explain that the sudden change in numbers of students was probably due to underestimates in the previous year, so have corrected these. Student numbers were anomously low in 2016. See section 5.
But the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017 - 37.5% of what they held. Polls in Scotland are not showing the SNP stronger than in April/May 2017. Labour ,however, are well up on the ratings recorded at that time and level pegging with the Tories. Also there are likely to be many left of centre voters who vote SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster. How do you explain the Labour surge from 1 seat to 7? Even I predicted a mere 4 or 5 - in the face of much lampooning.
Citation required. Scottish Labour are down on their 2017 election result.
Yougov poll May 15th - 18th 2017 had the following - SNP 42 Con 29 Lab 19 LibDem 6 Yougov poll June 1st - 5th 2017 had the results - SNP 41 Con 26 Lab 25 Libdem 6 Actual result June 8h 2017 - SNP 36.9 Con 28.6 Lab 27.1 LibDem 6.8
Where Justin may be right is that in FPTP, it is perfectly possible for the SNP to maintain vote share but lose seats through Unionist tactical voting.
E.g., in 2017 it was unclear in Argyll & Bute whether to vote LibDem or Tory if you wished to cast an anti-SNP vote. It is unclear no more.
It took a few general elections in the 1990s for anti-Tory tactical voting to become efficient.
So, I think more SNP seat losses might occur (to all 3 parties), even if the SNP vote percentage is steady.
On the other hand parties may - indeed have - fallen to third place yet subsequently gone on to recover sufficiently to win seats.It,therefore, does not follow that because party X was 3rd in 2017 that that represents the likely position today. Argyll & Bute has had a LibDem MP until recent years and should remain a reasonable prospect for them were their national fortunes to recover.As a result, tactical voters can sometimes be led astray!
It was the former MP who stood for the LibDems in 2017.
He was surely disappointed in what happened, as he fell to third, but he did well enough to prevent anotherTory Gain.
Like the Tory vote rising in North East Fife to ensure the SNP kept the seat (by 2 votes).
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Students come here, pay fees, contribute to the economy and get no benefits. So that's not a bad thing if that's the source.
However net migration is still in hundreds of thousands and 72k doesn't explain all of it.
That's a 72k increase since Sep 2016, the total coming here to study in June 2018 was 199k.
The other big elements in the June 2018 immigration figures were 'Work related' = 237k and 'Accompany/join' = 73k.
There have always been foreign students and millionaires who have migrated to this country - is there any reason to believe that those numbers have increased by hundreds of thousands in the last year ?
Now as to dependents moving here then I suspect that is part of the answer - but that demolishes the idea that immigrants only come here to work and don't claim benefits or use public services.
I would also guess there has been a shift in immigrant sources with more recent immigrants less likely to work.
What I would like to see is far more detail as to who is migrating to this country and for what purpose.
Because if what the ONS is showing and what RCS seemed to find is correct then this country's immigration policy is a complete shambles.
Well you could always take a look at the ONS data yourself:
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Its an increase of 38 thousand increase in migration inflow for formal study between ye June 2016 and ye June 2018.
Clearly not put off by so called 'xenophobic' Britain
But that spreadsheet proves my point - the number of migrants coming to this country for work purposes is now only a small percentage of the total.
And that's even assuming that all those who say they are migrating to this country for work purposes are telling the truth.
After all if in the year to June 2018 their was net immigration of 65 thousand for work purposes yet the number of immigrants in employment fell something isn't right.
The post is obviously tongue-in-cheek - but it was exactly this kind of stuff that helped Corbyn much more profoundly in another way. Firstly it played into Corbyn's USP and engendered some sympathy for him among those on the left who were pretty ambivalent. Secondly, and more importantly, it built up the idea that attacks on him were all besmirching the man's character. So then when they did attack on the actual serious stuff - the anti-Semitism, Stop the War, Murray and Milne, Press TV, policy incoherence - it was pretty much lost in a milieu of "Well you would say that wouldn't you, you're the people who attacked him over his tie and accused him of disrespecting troops".
They tried to turn him into a laughing stock when they should've taken him seriously and nailed down the two or three things that should have been genuinely disqualifying. It's a little bit like the mistake Trump's GOP rivals made. They attacked Trump the reality TV star rather than crooked fascistic businessman until it was too late. Similarly the Tories attacked Corbyn the scruffy old lefty and played into his image rather than trying to expose the kindly unprepossessing image as fraudulent and masking nastier tendencies.
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Students come here, pay fees, contribute to the economy and get no benefits. So that's not a bad thing if that's the source.
However net migration is still in hundreds of thousands and 72k doesn't explain all of it.
That's a 72k increase since Sep 2016, the total coming here to study in June 2018 was 199k.
The other big elements in the June 2018 immigration figures were 'Work related' = 237k and 'Accompany/join' = 73k.
You can't compare Sep 2016 to June 2018 it needs to be equivalent quarters.
However the variation in the inflow of students is interesting of itself:
ye Jun 2010 +235k ye Jun 2011 +239k ye Jun 2012 +197k ye Jun 2013 +175k ye Jun 2014 +175k ye Jun 2015 +193k ye Jun 2016 +164k ye Jun 2017 +139k ye Jun 2018 +202k
I believe the government clamped down on fake students but that's a big fall from 2010 and why the increase during the last year ?
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Students come here, pay fees, contribute to the economy and get no benefits. So that's not a bad thing if that's the source.
However net migration is still in hundreds of thousands and 72k doesn't explain all of it.
That's a 72k increase since Sep 2016, the total coming here to study in June 2018 was 199k.
The other big elements in the June 2018 immigration figures were 'Work related' = 237k and 'Accompany/join' = 73k.
You can't compare Sep 2016 to June 2018 it needs to be equivalent quarters.
However the variation in the inflow of students is interesting of itself:
ye Jun 2010 +235k ye Jun 2011 +239k ye Jun 2012 +197k ye Jun 2013 +175k ye Jun 2014 +175k ye Jun 2015 +193k ye Jun 2016 +164k ye Jun 2017 +139k ye Jun 2018 +202k
I believe the government clamped down on fake students but that's a big fall from 2010 and why the increase during the last year ?
The ONS thinks that it was underestimating students in 2016-17 see fig 6:
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Students come here, pay fees, contribute to the economy and get no benefits. So that's not a bad thing if that's the source.
However net migration is still in hundreds of thousands and 72k doesn't explain all of it.
That's a 72k increase since Sep 2016, the total coming here to study in June 2018 was 199k.
The other big elements in the June 2018 immigration figures were 'Work related' = 237k and 'Accompany/join' = 73k.
You can't compare Sep 2016 to June 2018 it needs to be equivalent quarters.
However the variation in the inflow of students is interesting of itself:
ye Jun 2010 +235k ye Jun 2011 +239k ye Jun 2012 +197k ye Jun 2013 +175k ye Jun 2014 +175k ye Jun 2015 +193k ye Jun 2016 +164k ye Jun 2017 +139k ye Jun 2018 +202k
I believe the government clamped down on fake students but that's a big fall from 2010 and why the increase during the last year ?
See Foxy's post at 22:00 re student numbers.
The figures are obviously open to interpretation. We should remember though that the majority of immigration had always been non-EU, which any government could have stopped at any time.
Given their inability to do so, I think we can be confident that Brexit will make no difference to immigration levels. (Caveat: unless it crashes the economy to the extent that Britain is no longer in a desirable destination.)
The figures are obviously open to interpretation. We should remember though that the majority of immigration had always been non-EU, which any government could have stopped at any time.
Given their inability to do so, I think we can be confident that Brexit will make no difference to immigration levels. (Caveat: unless it crashes the economy to the extent that Britain is no longer in a desirable destination.)
This is a false dichotomy.
We want good migration, we don't want zero migration. Non-EU migration has to be approved by a metric that we approve of therefore should be good migration. EU migration has no such controls.
If the choice is to allow in an Australian nurse, or an Indian doctor, or a German unemployed and unskilled individual, or a Romanian unemployed and unskilled individual ... I would choose the first two of the latter two. Why should we need to stop the first two (because we can) before we gain the controls of being able to stop the latter two?
Plus AFAIK non-EU migration isn't entitled to in-work or other welfare benefits. They can't claim tax credits etc. AFAIK EU migration is able to.
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Students come here, pay fees, contribute to the economy and get no benefits. So that's not a bad thing if that's the source.
However net migration is still in hundreds of thousands and 72k doesn't explain all of it.
That's a 72k increase since Sep 2016, the total coming here to study in June 2018 was 199k.
The other big elements in the June 2018 immigration figures were 'Work related' = 237k and 'Accompany/join' = 73k.
You can't compare Sep 2016 to June 2018 it needs to be equivalent quarters.
However the variation in the inflow of students is interesting of itself:
ye Jun 2010 +235k ye Jun 2011 +239k ye Jun 2012 +197k ye Jun 2013 +175k ye Jun 2014 +175k ye Jun 2015 +193k ye Jun 2016 +164k ye Jun 2017 +139k ye Jun 2018 +202k
I believe the government clamped down on fake students but that's a big fall from 2010 and why the increase during the last year ?
The ONS thinks that it was underestimating students in 2016-17 see fig 6:
The figures are obviously open to interpretation. We should remember though that the majority of immigration had always been non-EU, which any government could have stopped at any time.
Given their inability to do so, I think we can be confident that Brexit will make no difference to immigration levels. (Caveat: unless it crashes the economy to the extent that Britain is no longer in a desirable destination.)
This is a false dichotomy.
We want good migration, we don't want zero migration. Non-EU migration has to be approved by a metric that we approve of therefore should be good migration. EU migration has no such controls.
If the choice is to allow in an Australian nurse, or an Indian doctor, or a German unemployed and unskilled individual, or a Romanian unemployed and unskilled individual ... I would choose the first two of the latter two. Why should we need to stop the first two (because we can) before we gain the controls of being able to stop the latter two?
Plus AFAIK non-EU migration isn't entitled to in-work or other welfare benefits. They can't claim tax credits etc. AFAIK EU migration is able to.
Your point is a fair one. Assuming May's deal get through (as I think it will) let's see how it works out in a year or two shall we?
I predict migration will still be an issue for many people, stoked by the Sun, Mail and Express. I hope I am wrong.
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Students come here, pay fees, contribute to the economy and get no benefits. So that's not a bad thing if that's the source.
However net migration is still in hundreds of thousands and 72k doesn't explain all of it.
That's a 72k increase since Sep 2016, the total coming here to study in June 2018 was 199k.
The other big elements in the June 2018 immigration figures were 'Work related' = 237k and 'Accompany/join' = 73k.
You can't compare Sep 2016 to June 2018 it needs to be equivalent quarters.
However the variation in the inflow of students is interesting of itself:
ye Jun 2010 +235k ye Jun 2011 +239k ye Jun 2012 +197k ye Jun 2013 +175k ye Jun 2014 +175k ye Jun 2015 +193k ye Jun 2016 +164k ye Jun 2017 +139k ye Jun 2018 +202k
I believe the government clamped down on fake students but that's a big fall from 2010 and why the increase during the last year ?
See Foxy's post at 22:00 re student numbers.
The figures are obviously open to interpretation. We should remember though that the majority of immigration had always been non-EU, which any government could have stopped at any time.
Given their inability to do so, I think we can be confident that Brexit will make no difference to immigration levels. (Caveat: unless it crashes the economy to the extent that Britain is no longer in a desirable destination.)
The ONS numbers are based on passenger survey numbers, because unlike many countries we do not count people in and out at passport control. The annual sample may be as few as 5000 international migrants and doesn't cover all ports. The ONS figures have wide confidence limits as a result. The methodology is summarised and critiqued here:
There have always been foreign students and millionaires who have migrated to this country - is there any reason to believe that those numbers have increased by hundreds of thousands in the last year ?
Now as to dependents moving here then I suspect that is part of the answer - but that demolishes the idea that immigrants only come here to work and don't claim benefits or use public services.
I would also guess there has been a shift in immigrant sources with more recent immigrants less likely to work.
What I would like to see is far more detail as to who is migrating to this country and for what purpose.
Because if what the ONS is showing and what RCS seemed to find is correct then this country's immigration policy is a complete shambles.
Well you could always take a look at the ONS data yourself:
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Its an increase of 38 thousand increase in migration inflow for formal study between ye June 2016 and ye June 2018.
Clearly not put off by so called 'xenophobic' Britain
But that spreadsheet proves my point - the number of migrants coming to this country for work purposes is now only a small percentage of the total.
And that's even assuming that all those who say they are migrating to this country for work purposes are telling the truth.
After all if in the year to June 2018 their was net immigration of 65 thousand for work purposes yet the number of immigrants in employment fell something isn't right.
Just spitballing thoughts, but how many previously in-work migrants die/retire each year?
If there was net immigration of 65k, but 100k retired or died, then that would be a reduction by 35k of numbers working.
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Students come here, pay fees, contribute to the economy and get no benefits. So that's not a bad thing if that's the source.
However net migration is still in hundreds of thousands and 72k doesn't explain all of it.
That's a 72k increase since Sep 2016, the total coming here to study in June 2018 was 199k.
The other big elements in the June 2018 immigration figures were 'Work related' = 237k and 'Accompany/join' = 73k.
You can't compare Sep 2016 to June 2018 it needs to be equivalent quarters.
However the variation in the inflow of students is interesting of itself:
ye Jun 2010 +235k ye Jun 2011 +239k ye Jun 2012 +197k ye Jun 2013 +175k ye Jun 2014 +175k ye Jun 2015 +193k ye Jun 2016 +164k ye Jun 2017 +139k ye Jun 2018 +202k
I believe the government clamped down on fake students but that's a big fall from 2010 and why the increase during the last year ?
The ONS thinks that it was underestimating students in 2016-17 see fig 6:
I would have thought that knowing the number of students would have been one of the easier things for the ONS to know but it seems not.
That suggests that the ONS might have underestimated immigration by up to 50k in the year to June 2017.
In the future, all travellers are going to be electronically recorded on entry and departure, but I do not know when the system starts. I expect we may see more accurate figures, but they may not relate well to the existing estimates, so not comparable.
The figures are obviously open to interpretation. We should remember though that the majority of immigration had always been non-EU, which any government could have stopped at any time.
Given their inability to do so, I think we can be confident that Brexit will make no difference to immigration levels. (Caveat: unless it crashes the economy to the extent that Britain is no longer in a desirable destination.)
This is a false dichotomy.
We want good migration, we don't want zero migration. Non-EU migration has to be approved by a metric that we approve of therefore should be good migration. EU migration has no such controls.
If the choice is to allow in an Australian nurse, or an Indian doctor, or a German unemployed and unskilled individual, or a Romanian unemployed and unskilled individual ... I would choose the first two of the latter two. Why should we need to stop the first two (because we can) before we gain the controls of being able to stop the latter two?
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
There have always been foreign students and millionaires who have migrated to this country - is there any reason to believe that those numbers have increased by hundreds of thousands in the last year ?
Now as to dependents moving here then I suspect that is part of the answer - but that demolishes the idea that immigrants only come here to work and don't claim benefits or use public services.
I would also guess there has been a shift in immigrant sources with more recent immigrants less likely to work.
What I would like to see is far more detail as to who is migrating to this country and for what purpose.
Because if what the ONS is showing and what RCS seemed to find is correct then this country's immigration policy is a complete shambles.
Well you could always take a look at the ONS data yourself:
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Its an increase of 38 thousand increase in migration inflow for formal study between ye June 2016 and ye June 2018.
Clearly not put off by so called 'xenophobic' Britain
But that spreadsheet proves my point - the number of migrants coming to this country for work purposes is now only a small percentage of the total.
And that's even assuming that all those who say they are migrating to this country for work purposes are telling the truth.
After all if in the year to June 2018 their was net immigration of 65 thousand for work purposes yet the number of immigrants in employment fell something isn't right.
Just spitballing thoughts, but how many previously in-work migrants die/retire each year?
If there was net immigration of 65k, but 100k retired or died, then that would be a reduction by 35k of numbers working.
It's a good point. I've lost the spreadie now but IIRC there are over 5m non-UK citizens working in the UK, so you'd expect 100-150k to retire every year. Some may return to their home countries but many will have made their lives here.
There have always been foreign students and millionaires who have migrated to this country - is there any reason to believe that those numbers have increased by hundreds of thousands in the last year ?
Now as to dependents moving here then I suspect that is part of the answer - but that demolishes the idea that immigrants only come here to work and don't claim benefits or use public services.
I would also guess there has been a shift in immigrant sources with more recent immigrants less likely to work.
What I would like to see is far more detail as to who is migrating to this country and for what purpose.
Because if what the ONS is showing and what RCS seemed to find is correct then this country's immigration policy is a complete shambles.
Well you could always take a look at the ONS data yourself:
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Its an increase of 38 thousand increase in migration inflow for formal study between ye June 2016 and ye June 2018.
Clearly not put off by so called 'xenophobic' Britain
But that spreadsheet proves my point - the number of migrants coming to this country for work purposes is now only a small percentage of the total.
And that's even assuming that all those who say they are migrating to this country for work purposes are telling the truth.
After all if in the year to June 2018 their was net immigration of 65 thousand for work purposes yet the number of immigrants in employment fell something isn't right.
Just spitballing thoughts, but how many previously in-work migrants die/retire each year?
If there was net immigration of 65k, but 100k retired or died, then that would be a reduction by 35k of numbers working.
As most in work migrants are young and healthy, I suspect that is a fairly small percentage. More likely to be people returning home.
Of course the Labour Force Survey also has innacuracies, and there is also a number of naturalisations, so both EU and Non-EU migrants get recorded as UK citizens in work.
There have always been foreign students and millionaires who have migrated to this country - is there any reason to believe that those numbers have increased by hundreds of thousands in the last year ?
Now as to dependents moving here then I suspect that is part of the answer - but that demolishes the idea that immigrants only come here to work and don't claim benefits or use public services.
I would also guess there has been a shift in immigrant sources with more recent immigrants less likely to work.
What I would like to see is far more detail as to who is migrating to this country and for what purpose.
Because if what the ONS is showing and what RCS seemed to find is correct then this country's immigration policy is a complete shambles.
Well you could always take a look at the ONS data yourself:
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
Its an increase of 38 thousand increase in migration inflow for formal study between ye June 2016 and ye June 2018.
Clearly not put off by so called 'xenophobic' Britain
But that spreadsheet proves my point - the number of migrants coming to this country for work purposes is now only a small percentage of the total.
And that's even assuming that all those who say they are migrating to this country for work purposes are telling the truth.
After all if in the year to June 2018 their was net immigration of 65 thousand for work purposes yet the number of immigrants in employment fell something isn't right.
Just spitballing thoughts, but how many previously in-work migrants die/retire each year?
If there was net immigration of 65k, but 100k retired or died, then that would be a reduction by 35k of numbers working.
That's definitely a factor of that in the calculations.
For example a 20 year old on the Empire Windrush would have retired in 1993.
On the other hand someone born in 2000 and who migrated here with their parents subsequently might have become employed this year.
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
The figures are obviously open to interpretation. We should remember though that the majority of immigration had always been non-EU, which any government could have stopped at any time.
Given their inability to do so, I think we can be confident that Brexit will make no difference to immigration levels. (Caveat: unless it crashes the economy to the extent that Britain is no longer in a desirable destination.)
This is a false dichotomy.
We want good migration, we don't want zero migration. Non-EU migration has to be approved by a metric that we approve of therefore should be good migration. EU migration has no such controls.
If the choice is to allow in an Australian nurse, or an Indian doctor, or a German unemployed and unskilled individual, or a Romanian unemployed and unskilled individual ... I would choose the first two of the latter two. Why should we need to stop the first two (because we can) before we gain the controls of being able to stop the latter two?
The figures are obviously open to interpretation. We should remember though that the majority of immigration had always been non-EU, which any government could have stopped at any time.
Given their inability to do so, I think we can be confident that Brexit will make no difference to immigration levels. (Caveat: unless it crashes the economy to the extent that Britain is no longer in a desirable destination.)
This is a false dichotomy.
We want good migration, we don't want zero migration. Non-EU migration has to be approved by a metric that we approve of therefore should be good migration. EU migration has no such controls.
If the choice is to allow in an Australian nurse, or an Indian doctor, or a German unemployed and unskilled individual, or a Romanian unemployed and unskilled individual ... I would choose the first two of the latter two. Why should we need to stop the first two (because we can) before we gain the controls of being able to stop the latter two?
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
My first comment was in 2008.
Some others before me were the two Seans and Richard Tyndall.
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
Fresh blood - usually a good thing.
Next thing you know you've been hanging around for the better part of a decade (though frankly, as decades go, I am not very impressed with the 2010s so far, outside of some very good television)
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
My first comment was in 2008.
Some others before me were the two Seans and Richard Tyndall.
Not to forget NPMP.
SeanT was around when I started. So was NPMP. Not sure whether Richard and Sean Fear preceded me or not.
The figures are obviously open to interpretation. We should remember though that the majority of immigration had always been non-EU, which any government could have stopped at any time.
Given their inability to do so, I think we can be confident that Brexit will make no difference to immigration levels. (Caveat: unless it crashes the economy to the extent that Britain is no longer in a desirable destination.)
This is a false dichotomy.
We want good migration, we don't want zero migration. Non-EU migration has to be approved by a metric that we approve of therefore should be good migration. EU migration has no such controls.
If the choice is to allow in an Australian nurse, or an Indian doctor, or a German unemployed and unskilled individual, or a Romanian unemployed and unskilled individual ... I would choose the first two of the latter two. Why should we need to stop the first two (because we can) before we gain the controls of being able to stop the latter two?
What makes you think we don't need all of them?
Why do we need people who don't work ?
Under existing FOM rules, someone without work after 3 months can be deported.
EU migrants have very high employment rates, higher than UK citizens and non-EU migrants. In many sectors including agriculture, health and social care, as well as hospitality there is great demand for unskilled workers.
So the person on here (SeanT?) who jokingly suggested THE GATWICK DRONE might have been a collective delusion caused by an extreme build up of Brexit psychosis may have been accidentally correct.
But why would Gatwick be delusion centre ?
The prospect that there was nothing there at all is somehow even more depressing than so much chaos was caused by a couple of drones. If there was nothing please god let it be some deliberately started psychological experiment or something so some use may come from it.
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
The figures are obviously open to interpretation. We should remember though that the majority of immigration had always been non-EU, which any government could have stopped at any time.
Given their inability to do so, I think we can be confident that Brexit will make no difference to immigration levels. (Caveat: unless it crashes the economy to the extent that Britain is no longer in a desirable destination.)
This is a false dichotomy.
We want good migration, we don't want zero migration. Non-EU migration has to be approved by a metric that we approve of therefore should be good migration. EU migration has no such controls.
If the choice is to allow in an Australian nurse, or an Indian doctor, or a German unemployed and unskilled individual, or a Romanian unemployed and unskilled individual ... I would choose the first two of the latter two. Why should we need to stop the first two (because we can) before we gain the controls of being able to stop the latter two?
What makes you think we don't need all of them?
We have our own unskilled and unemployed eligible to benefits without importing more and entitling them to our benefits too. I have no qualms with skilled, working migrants who support themselves but I see no reason to import people to claim welfare.
The simplest solution for me is to abolish both a migration cap, and simultaneously abolish all welfare and all in-work benefits for migrants and if someone can't support themselves they can go home. Anyone who can support themselves while paying taxes is welcome. Anyone who can't, I'm sorry but good luck at home.
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
Been here in some shape or form for a long time.
Next time you forget your password, Someshapeorform would be a great username!
The figures are obviously open to interpretation. We should remember though that the majority of immigration had always been non-EU, which any government could have stopped at any time.
Given their inability to do so, I think we can be confident that Brexit will make no difference to immigration levels. (Caveat: unless it crashes the economy to the extent that Britain is no longer in a desirable destination.)
This is a false dichotomy.
We want good migration, we don't want zero migration. Non-EU migration has to be approved by a metric that we approve of therefore should be good migration. EU migration has no such controls.
If the choice is to allow in an Australian nurse, or an Indian doctor, or a German unemployed and unskilled individual, or a Romanian unemployed and unskilled individual ... I would choose the first two of the latter two. Why should we need to stop the first two (because we can) before we gain the controls of being able to stop the latter two?
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
Been here in some shape or form for a long time.
Next time you forget your password, Someshapeorform would be a great username!
How many different accounts did the late Plato have because she kept forgetting her password? It was quite a lot!
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
I think I started posting about a year after PB started.
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
I think I started posting about a year after PB started.
So a bit earlier than me then (that would be around 2005/6)?
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
I was around a bit back in 2008, when Obama won for the first time. Made enough to buy a new camera and lenses, but drifted away. The puns are better these days; our politics not so much.
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
Been here in some shape or form for a long time.
Next time you forget your password, Someshapeorform would be a great username!
Agreed! Thanks.
It’s almost worth wiping my memory deliberately just to instigate that
As most in work migrants are young and healthy, I suspect that is a fairly small percentage. More likely to be people returning home.
Of course the Labour Force Survey also has innacuracies, and there is also a number of naturalisations, so both EU and Non-EU migrants get recorded as UK citizens in work.
Most in-work migrants may be young and healthy, not all will be. Someone who migrated in their 30s in 1998 would be in their 50s already now. Someone who migrated even earlier would of course now be even older. As has been pointed out it is 70 years since the Windrush Generation started to arrive, even infants from the original wave of migrants will now be retired.
When you're talking millions of migrants working here, even a relatively small percentage of them retiring/dying etc could be in the tens of thousands or higher.
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
Been here in some shape or form for a long time.
Next time you forget your password, Someshapeorform would be a great username!
Agreed! Thanks.
It’s almost worth wiping my memory deliberately just to instigate that
But if you do, you'll forget the suggestion. Catch-22.
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
I was around a bit back in 2008, when Obama won for the first time. Made enough to buy a new camera and lenses, but drifted away. The puns are better these days; our politics not so much.
Found this place on election night 2005, but didn’t post until a few years ago. Was a great way to spend down time during Uni, which was thankfully Pre Netflix etc
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
"It's at this time of the year that our thoughts turn towards the Commonwealth ... "
“It is at this time of year when one wonders who the fuck thought it a good idea to have a referendum which would split an entire nation. Some twat who’s now got his trotters up in the south of France.”
That's definitely a factor of that in the calculations.
For example a 20 year old on the Empire Windrush would have retired in 1993.
On the other hand someone born in 2000 and who migrated here with their parents subsequently might have become employed this year.
Indeed, if they migrated with their parents they'll be counted. On the other hand if they were born here after their parents migrated then they wouldn't. So it's all rather complicated.
The figures are obviously open to interpretation. We should remember though that the majority of immigration had always been non-EU, which any government could have stopped at any time.
Given their inability to do so, I think we can be confident that Brexit will make no difference to immigration levels. (Caveat: unless it crashes the economy to the extent that Britain is no longer in a desirable destination.)
This is a false dichotomy.
We want good migration, we don't want zero migration. Non-EU migration has to be approved by a metric that we approve of therefore should be good migration. EU migration has no such controls.
If the choice is to allow in an Australian nurse, or an Indian doctor, or a German unemployed and unskilled individual, or a Romanian unemployed and unskilled individual ... I would choose the first two of the latter two. Why should we need to stop the first two (because we can) before we gain the controls of being able to stop the latter two?
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
Been here in some shape or form for a long time.
Next time you forget your password, Someshapeorform would be a great username!
Agreed! Thanks.
It’s almost worth wiping my memory deliberately just to instigate that
But if you do, you'll forget the suggestion. Catch-22.
So the person on here (SeanT?) who jokingly suggested THE GATWICK DRONE might have been a collective delusion caused by an extreme build up of Brexit psychosis may have been accidentally correct.
But why would Gatwick be delusion centre ?
The prospect that there was nothing there at all is somehow even more depressing than so much chaos was caused by a couple of drones. If there was nothing please god let it be some deliberately started psychological experiment or something so some use may come from it.
Apparently there was never a Brexit either. It was a chimera.
The figures are obviously open to interpretation. We should remember though that the majority of immigration had always been non-EU, which any government could have stopped at any time.
Given their inability to do so, I think we can be confident that Brexit will make no difference to immigration levels. (Caveat: unless it crashes the economy to the extent that Britain is no longer in a desirable destination.)
This is a false dichotomy.
We want good migration, we don't want zero migration. Non-EU migration has to be approved by a metric that we approve of therefore should be good migration. EU migration has no such controls.
If the choice is to allow in an Australian nurse, or an Indian doctor, or a German unemployed and unskilled individual, or a Romanian unemployed and unskilled individual ... I would choose the first two of the latter two. Why should we need to stop the first two (because we can) before we gain the controls of being able to stop the latter two?
What makes you think we don't need all of them?
We have our own unskilled and unemployed eligible to benefits without importing more and entitling them to our benefits too. I have no qualms with skilled, working migrants who support themselves but I see no reason to import people to claim welfare.
Why do you assume that unskilled immigrants aren't going to work and support themselves?
Are you arguing that there is no need in the UK for unskilled labour, or what?
Don't they film the Christmas speech about a month in advance? I hope they did a couple of takes about whether we had/had not put behind us some of the recent divisions that have vexed us so.
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
“It is at this time of year one thinks of motherhood and apple pie.”
So the person on here (SeanT?) who jokingly suggested THE GATWICK DRONE might have been a collective delusion caused by an extreme build up of Brexit psychosis may have been accidentally correct.
But why would Gatwick be delusion centre ?
The prospect that there was nothing there at all is somehow even more depressing than so much chaos was caused by a couple of drones. If there was nothing please god let it be some deliberately started psychological experiment or something so some use may come from it.
Apparently there was never a Brexit either. It was a chimera.
Well that's a relief, otherwise it all seems quite fraught.
It does lend weight to the suggestion that the solution to the Irish border issue is just to pretend we've solved it and carry on as usual.
That's definitely a factor of that in the calculations.
For example a 20 year old on the Empire Windrush would have retired in 1993.
On the other hand someone born in 2000 and who migrated here with their parents subsequently might have become employed this year.
Indeed, if they migrated with their parents they'll be counted. On the other hand if they were born here after their parents migrated then they wouldn't. So it's all rather complicated.
I don't think that it could account for the sudden drop though.
So the person on here (SeanT?) who jokingly suggested THE GATWICK DRONE might have been a collective delusion caused by an extreme build up of Brexit psychosis may have been accidentally correct.
But why would Gatwick be delusion centre ?
The prospect that there was nothing there at all is somehow even more depressing than so much chaos was caused by a couple of drones. If there was nothing please god let it be some deliberately started psychological experiment or something so some use may come from it.
Apparently there was never a Brexit either. It was a chimera.
The entire last three years have been a bad dream.
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
I think I started posting about a year after PB started.
I first discovered this site during the 2004 US election. Frequent visitor, less frequent poster.
So the person on here (SeanT?) who jokingly suggested THE GATWICK DRONE might have been a collective delusion caused by an extreme build up of Brexit psychosis may have been accidentally correct.
But why would Gatwick be delusion centre ?
The prospect that there was nothing there at all is somehow even more depressing than so much chaos was caused by a couple of drones. If there was nothing please god let it be some deliberately started psychological experiment or something so some use may come from it.
All we need now is the advert for derren browns latest Netflix special! After get a racist to save a mexican, the new one will be driven mad by brexit got them to imagine drones.
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
I was around a bit back in 2008, when Obama won for the first time. Made enough to buy a new camera and lenses, but drifted away. The puns are better these days; our politics not so much.
Found this place on election night 2005, but didn’t post until a few years ago. Was a great way to spend down time during Uni, which was thankfully Pre Netflix etc
I think I first stumbled across this place around the 2005 election too.
Comments
Labour was recorded in the range 22% - 26% - and actually polled 24.8%
The two categories of immigrants I noted earlier won't be working but do add to the economy. In fact they bring money in to the country.
Now as to dependents moving here then I suspect that is part of the answer - but that demolishes the idea that immigrants only come here to work and don't claim benefits or use public services.
I would also guess there has been a shift in immigrant sources with more recent immigrants less likely to work.
What I would like to see is far more detail as to who is migrating to this country and for what purpose.
Because if what the ONS is showing and what RCS seemed to find is correct then this country's immigration policy is a complete shambles.
http://internetserver.bishopsgate.org.uk/files/Parliamentary Profiles Archive/A-D/CORBYN, Jeremy/CORBYN, Jeremy.pdf
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreportprovisionallongterminternationalmigrationltimestimates
Table 3a shows the changes in Reason for Migration over time. The 62k fall since June 2016 in the number giving "work related" as the reason is offset by a 72k increase in those giving formal study as the reason.
It makes sense really, since the Brexit vote fewer are coming here to work; on the other hand Brexit doesn't deter many (mainly Asian) students from coming here to study.
However net migration is still in hundreds of thousands and 72k doesn't explain all of it.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/november2018#migration-for-work-remains-the-most-common-reason-for-migration
It may well be that the numbers of non workers arriving hasn't really altered much.
The other big elements in the June 2018 immigration figures were 'Work related' = 237k and 'Accompany/join' = 73k.
Clearly not put off by so called 'xenophobic' Britain
But that spreadsheet proves my point - the number of migrants coming to this country for work purposes is now only a small percentage of the total.
And that's even assuming that all those who say they are migrating to this country for work purposes are telling the truth.
After all if in the year to June 2018 their was net immigration of 65 thousand for work purposes yet the number of immigrants in employment fell something isn't right.
"Does the EU need us more than we need them?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46612362
(To save yourself the bother of reading it their conclusion is NO!)
They tried to turn him into a laughing stock when they should've taken him seriously and nailed down the two or three things that should have been genuinely disqualifying. It's a little bit like the mistake Trump's GOP rivals made. They attacked Trump the reality TV star rather than crooked fascistic businessman until it was too late. Similarly the Tories attacked Corbyn the scruffy old lefty and played into his image rather than trying to expose the kindly unprepossessing image as fraudulent and masking nastier tendencies.
However the variation in the inflow of students is interesting of itself:
ye Jun 2010 +235k
ye Jun 2011 +239k
ye Jun 2012 +197k
ye Jun 2013 +175k
ye Jun 2014 +175k
ye Jun 2015 +193k
ye Jun 2016 +164k
ye Jun 2017 +139k
ye Jun 2018 +202k
I believe the government clamped down on fake students but that's a big fall from 2010 and why the increase during the last year ?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/november2018#migration-for-work-remains-the-most-common-reason-for-migration
Oh wait, maybe not
The figures are obviously open to interpretation. We should remember though that the majority of immigration had always been non-EU, which any government could have stopped at any time.
Given their inability to do so, I think we can be confident that Brexit will make no difference to immigration levels. (Caveat: unless it crashes the economy to the extent that Britain is no longer in a desirable destination.)
We want good migration, we don't want zero migration. Non-EU migration has to be approved by a metric that we approve of therefore should be good migration. EU migration has no such controls.
If the choice is to allow in an Australian nurse, or an Indian doctor, or a German unemployed and unskilled individual, or a Romanian unemployed and unskilled individual ... I would choose the first two of the latter two. Why should we need to stop the first two (because we can) before we gain the controls of being able to stop the latter two?
Plus AFAIK non-EU migration isn't entitled to in-work or other welfare benefits. They can't claim tax credits etc. AFAIK EU migration is able to.
I would have thought that knowing the number of students would have been one of the easier things for the ONS to know but it seems not.
That suggests that the ONS might have underestimated immigration by up to 50k in the year to June 2017.
I predict migration will still be an issue for many people, stoked by the Sun, Mail and Express. I hope I am wrong.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45272404
Thank you for your contribution
If there was net immigration of 65k, but 100k retired or died, then that would be a reduction by 35k of numbers working.
Sounds like a win for the UK.
But never say never, I guess.
Of course the Labour Force Survey also has innacuracies, and there is also a number of naturalisations, so both EU and Non-EU migrants get recorded as UK citizens in work.
For example a 20 year old on the Empire Windrush would have retired in 1993.
On the other hand someone born in 2000 and who migrated here with their parents subsequently might have become employed this year.
Disqus was great for upvotes and downvotes, pity it decided to go in for nesting comments which didn't work for a rolling forum.
So, the country has succumbed to collective psychosis.
SeanT was right (accidentally, apparently).
Of course, this is because the high water mark of.SNP seats in 2015 was **so** astonishingly high.
Some others before me were the two Seans and Richard Tyndall.
Not to forget NPMP.
No.
EU migrants have very high employment rates, higher than UK citizens and non-EU migrants. In many sectors including agriculture, health and social care, as well as hospitality there is great demand for unskilled workers.
Been here in some shape or form for a long time.
The simplest solution for me is to abolish both a migration cap, and simultaneously abolish all welfare and all in-work benefits for migrants and if someone can't support themselves they can go home. Anyone who can support themselves while paying taxes is welcome. Anyone who can't, I'm sorry but good luck at home.
I think it’s 90% certain that ‘the government’ - in the shape of Christo Grayling - was indeed behind much of the disruption
The puns are better these days; our politics not so much.
It’s almost worth wiping my memory deliberately just to instigate that
When you're talking millions of migrants working here, even a relatively small percentage of them retiring/dying etc could be in the tens of thousands or higher.
Well, one can only hope.
Are you arguing that there is no need in the UK for unskilled labour, or what?
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
“It is at this time of year one thinks of motherhood and apple pie.”
It does lend weight to the suggestion that the solution to the Irish border issue is just to pretend we've solved it and carry on as usual.
Brexit. Trumpton. The drone.
None are real.