And let's not forget that 13% are even further right than this.
You cant have it both ways - if you have to be on the rightwing of the Conservative party to agree then surely those to the left of that disagree.
In reality it's a poorly phrased question that doesnt lend itself to the kind of conclusions you or the Observer (or anyone else with an agenda) are trying to draw.
Theres a debate over immigration to be had and then there is a debate over this poll question. You can read what you like into this poll question and report it as you like.
It has been done so by various prominent posters on this site.
Might as well have asked if people prefer good eggs in their egg boxes.
Examine the language of the question and it shows the opposite to what the Guardian might wish:
"Romanians and Bulgarians coming to Britain have GOT to learn the language, WORK HARD and pay taxes, FIT IN AND BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY. If they do that, we should welcome them to the UK”, two in three (68%) agree, while 13% disagree"
Say it again: You HAVE to learn the language (no ifs no buts), you HAVE to get a job (i.e. no Roma selling Big Issues), and you have to SUBMIT TO BRITISH VALUES and "FIT IN" (i.e. no more rural Pakistani Muslims at all, thanks). Otherwise, you are not wanted.
This poll therefore reveals that 68% of the British people view immigration the same way as the rightwing of the Conservative party, where it shades into UKIP. And let's not forget that 13% are even further right than this.
The Lib Dems and Labourites should find this poll disturbing, as it proves their multicultural values and pro-immigration mores are completely out of fashion, if not publicly reviled.
Your disturbed mind thinks all Labour and Lib Dem supporters want is the right to claim benefits.
What percentage of recent immigrants claim benefits ? 1,2 % max.
Sure, but they could, and the government couldn't deport them. SeanT's right, the statement polled, which got clear majority support, is well to the right of UKIP.
Ireland's public healthcare system isnt insurance based but there is a large element of means-testing in it (and there is a large health insurance sector as a result). I dont think many people look very long and hard about the nature of healthcare systems before deciding where to live though.
Vastly more than that if you include tax credits. And they ALL use the NHS to which they have contributed precisely £0.00p, if they are "recent". .
As a group EU immigrants contribute a lot more to the UK exchequer than they take out. You should be rolling out the red carpet to us regardless of what languages we choose to speak!
Vastly more than that if you include tax credits. And they ALL use the NHS to which they have contributed precisely £0.00p, if they are "recent". .
As a group EU immigrants contribute a lot more to the UK exchequer than they take out. You should be rolling out the red carpet to us regardless of what languages we choose to speak!
Whats the contribution compared to non EU migrants ?
If Avery is around, he could pass this suggestion to Gideon:
Cut UK Border strength by half, Save zillions. They are a waste of time anyway. WE need new taxpayers to zoom ahead of Germany by 2030.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of immigration, why exactly do we need to zoom ahead of Germany by 2030? We should be worried about income/head not total output in the long run.
As a supporter of open-borders (Junior/Young-Turk coalition) the worst post I saw recently was from Topper (or some-such).*
The argument was posited by Weathercock: It's premise was that 1% of all NHS expenditure was spent on Eastern-Europeans. Mr Topper[?] opined that that was fair (as the 600,000 East-Europeans represent ~1% of the population).
Now, as you are all well aware by now, correlation =/= causation: Lacking Dr Fox's insight I feel Topper's argument is bunkum! The whole premise of open-migration is based upon importing the young; the fit; the resourceful. If we are importing the demographics of the UK [pro-rata NHS-expenditure] then a one-for-one analysis would imply that we are importing the aged; the crippled; the mentally challenged; and as likely a consumer and not a producer.
People who support the unholy alliance of Junior and Aye should at least think-through their arguments: If current labour imports are not effective substitutes for the current Labour-pool then WTF are we importing...?
Vastly more than that if you include tax credits. And they ALL use the NHS to which they have contributed precisely £0.00p, if they are "recent". .
As a group EU immigrants contribute a lot more to the UK exchequer than they take out. You should be rolling out the red carpet to us regardless of what languages we choose to speak!
Whats the contribution compared to non EU migrants ?
IIUC it works out as EU migrants big plus, non-EU migrants small minus, net small plus. This fits with normal free-market intuitions about government: The immigration the government is able to try to micro-manage makes a loss, whereas the immigration the government is forbidden from tinkering with makes a profit.
If you were pro immigration without controls then you would probably say disagree.
Yup, I'd disagree with that. I know quite a few migrant workers in Japan, especially Americans, who don't learn Japanese. I think they're missing out, but it's their call - I certainly don't think they should be stopped from living here because of it.
But we then let people claim benefits when the work dries up. I bet the Japanese don't.
You fail to draw a distinction between "live here" and "live here at someone else's expense".
But since you ask, yes, if I lost my job I'd be eligible for unemployment benefits.
But would you actually be able to claim them?
"Japan has traditionally been hard on welfare recipients … Applicants are expected to turn to their relatives or use up their savings before getting benefits. Welfare is considered less of an entitlement than a shameful handout."
If Avery is around, he could pass this suggestion to Gideon:
Cut UK Border strength by half, Save zillions. They are a waste of time anyway. WE need new taxpayers to zoom ahead of Germany by 2030.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of immigration, why exactly do we need to zoom ahead of Germany by 2030? We should be worried about income/head not total output in the long run.
Our income/head would rocket further ahead. Even the wildest suggestion of the doom-mongers do not predict the UK poulation to be 80m by 2030.
WE need new taxpayers to zoom ahead of Germany by 2030.
Laughable how you are claiming credit for the coalition's economic successes.
Since the main ingredient for this success is rising working age population, it is hardly due to the coalition's policies.
Having said that, the Liberal Democrats do have a perfectly sensible immigration policy and have , to some extent, curbed the worst excesses of the Tories.
They failed on the student numbers though. This was an own goal for Britain.
Vastly more than that if you include tax credits. And they ALL use the NHS to which they have contributed precisely £0.00p, if they are "recent". .
As a group EU immigrants contribute a lot more to the UK exchequer than they take out. You should be rolling out the red carpet to us regardless of what languages we choose to speak!
"Those from the EU 15 earn considerably more than workers from the A8 countries; EU 15 workers have a median wage of £13 per hour compared to the A8 median wage of £7.89. The contribution of the EU15 to the exchequer is therefore greater so combining them with the A8 obscures the impact of the latter. In any case, the EU 15 are not an immigration problem. The A8 and the forthcoming migrants from Romania and Bulgaria are the most relevant to policy."
If you were pro immigration without controls then you would probably say disagree.
Yup, I'd disagree with that. I know quite a few migrant workers in Japan, especially Americans, who don't learn Japanese. I think they're missing out, but it's their call - I certainly don't think they should be stopped from living here because of it.
But we then let people claim benefits when the work dries up. I bet the Japanese don't.
You fail to draw a distinction between "live here" and "live here at someone else's expense".
But since you ask, yes, if I lost my job I'd be eligible for unemployment benefits.
But would you actually be able to claim them?
"Japan has traditionally been hard on welfare recipients … Applicants are expected to turn to their relatives or use up their savings before getting benefits. Welfare is considered less of an entitlement than a shameful handout."
Yes, I could certainly claim unemployment benefit. Income support and housing benefit eligibility require your family to make up a weak excuse about why they can't handle it themselves. There may be some local officials described in the article who try to get in your way resulting in people who don't know any better falling through the cracks, but if you talk to somebody from the local Communist Party they'll talk you through it.
PS In general you shouldn't believe anything you read about Japan in the western press. The exception is the NYT's current (not 2007) reporter, Hiroko Tabuchi.
If Avery is around, he could pass this suggestion to Gideon:
Cut UK Border strength by half, Save zillions. They are a waste of time anyway. WE need new taxpayers to zoom ahead of Germany by 2030.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of immigration, why exactly do we need to zoom ahead of Germany by 2030? We should be worried about income/head not total output in the long run.
Our income/head would rocket further ahead. Even the wildest suggestion of the doom-mongers do not predict the UK poulation to be 80m by 2030.
I think the UK is expected to overtake Germany's population by about 2040 or so.
Fluffy, if you lost your job and stayed in the Netherlands to look for work, would you be able to claim Dutch social security benefits? And on what basis? - as a resident, because you've paid social taxes etc? Just wondering how the local system works.
I arrived in 2010: I should hope so (even if I have - morally - chosen not to join their "immigrant" database). That said: I know of an unemployed Argentine lawyer who is live in Noord-Brabant with full benefits for the last three years....
Editted-to-add: The Health System is privatised and run from Groningen: If you do not speak Dutch* they refuse to answer why - despite EHIC - you have to pay Euro-375/quarter in fines for being English.
* Except when I told them not to bother me if they can't get their ass-in-gear....
Exactly ! In Germany and in Ireland the benefits are better than in the UK.
"If you don't like the result of a poll, try to trash it !"
The poll result sounds entirely logical, I'm not trashing it. As always, it's the conclusions that are sometimes erroneously drawn (via headlines) that I have problems with.
As the famous saying goes, newspapers use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamp post - for support not for illumination. You can't blame the lamp post.
If Avery is around, he could pass this suggestion to Gideon:
Cut UK Border strength by half, Save zillions. They are a waste of time anyway. WE need new taxpayers to zoom ahead of Germany by 2030.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of immigration, why exactly do we need to zoom ahead of Germany by 2030? We should be worried about income/head not total output in the long run.
Our income/head would rocket further ahead. Even the wildest suggestion of the doom-mongers do not predict the UK poulation to be 80m by 2030.
As you support shutting down our power stations can you explain where the electricity would come from for this rocketing income/head on a rocketing population ?
De-lurking, although have attended two Dirty Dicks events. O/T - apologies Anecdotal - apologies but once in a life time thing and with a tenuous link to betting! Youngest daughter due date for third baby yesterday and staying with us for the night as we live close to hospital. 4 am I was awakened to warm up car, came inside to be greeted by very noisy daughter and even noisier mother clutching each other - ambulance required swiftish - on the way sir, please keep calm. The ambulance crew talked me through what follows. Having had a long and entirely undistinguished career in education I was elected by means of voting not recognised by MORI to deal with it - 15 minutes later I lifted the new born girl up for a suckle weighing ( told later by midwife) 7 lbs 11 ozs ( why not kgs for NHS!) As usual the members of the family all present in the house had small wagers on weight when the birth commenced - i guessed exactly - and this is what I want to know from the betting experts. I was disqualified on the basis that I lifted the new baby - does my wager still stand please?
If you were pro immigration without controls then you would probably say disagree.
Yup, I'd disagree with that. I know quite a few migrant workers in Japan, especially Americans, who don't learn Japanese. I think they're missing out, but it's their call - I certainly don't think they should be stopped from living here because of it.
But we then let people claim benefits when the work dries up. I bet the Japanese don't.
You fail to draw a distinction between "live here" and "live here at someone else's expense".
But since you ask, yes, if I lost my job I'd be eligible for unemployment benefits.
But would you actually be able to claim them?
"Japan has traditionally been hard on welfare recipients … Applicants are expected to turn to their relatives or use up their savings before getting benefits. Welfare is considered less of an entitlement than a shameful handout."
PS In general you shouldn't believe anything you read about Japan in the western press. The exception is the NYT's current (not 2007) reporter, Hiroko Tabuchi.
James Bartholomew wrote what I thought was an excellent article exploring possible explanations for Japan's low rate of illegitimate births. Do you consider his reporting accurate?
"Here in Britain, 46 per cent of all births are outside marriage. In America it is 41 per cent and in France 54 per cent. In Japan, the figure barely scrapes above 2 per cent.
Japanese morality regarding lone parenting is based around the perceived best interests of the child. You may think, ‘Well, hang on! We in the West care about children, too!’ Up to a point, yes. But the Japanese believe something that many people in the West only half-believe or only believe when it suits them: that the interests of children are clearly best served by having two, married parents. They therefore think it wrong — or shameful — knowingly and intentionally to bring a child into the world without that arrangement."
De-lurking, although have attended two Dirty Dicks events. O/T - apologies Anecdotal - apologies but once in a life time thing and with a tenuous link to betting! Youngest daughter due date for third baby yesterday and staying with us for the night as we live close to hospital. 4 am I was awakened to warm up car, came inside to be greeted by very noisy daughter and even noisier mother clutching each other - ambulance required swiftish - on the way sir, please keep calm. The ambulance crew talked me through what follows. Having had a long and entirely undistinguished career in education I was elected by means of voting not recognised by MORI to deal with it - 15 minutes later I lifted the new born girl up for a suckle weighing ( told later by midwife) 7 lbs 11 ozs ( why not kgs for NHS!) As usual the members of the family all present in the house had small wagers on weight when the birth commenced - i guessed exactly - and this is what I want to know from the betting experts. I was disqualified on the basis that I lifted the new baby - does my wager still stand please?
The interesting thing about the debate here is that it's showing that there are actually several schools of thought about migration:
1. The overcrowding view. "We're full up. Nothing against foreigners, but Britain is overcrowded, so we must find other solutions."
2. The labour shortage view. "We need to be selective, taking people we need and turning awsy those we don't. Yes to brain surgeons, no to farmers."
3. The cultural view. "We aren't necessarily overcrowded, but we need people who are comfortable integrating and being like us."
4. The benefits view. "Freedom of movement is fine, but people should pay for benefits, so rights should be accrued gradually, not instantly on arrival."
5. The freedom view. "It's an important part of life that we should be able to experience different cultures. People should be free to come and go as they please."
6. The diversity view. "It's too restrictive to only want one culture. The future is diversity, so our kids can pick the best from many cultures. We don't want them to be all like us."
These can overlap, but they don't always - e.g. some don't care if foreigners integrate so long as they contribute economically, others don't care if they contribute so long as they integrate with our culture. Some of them are clearly unworkable without some restrictions (e.g. I incline to "freedom", but wouldn't want 500 million guys from China to arrive tomorrow) but it's a useful starting point to sort out what one instinctively wants. It's also a reminder not to lump together everone who disagrees into one camp (whether "racist", "pro-immigrant", or any other label). I've excluded the pure racist view ("We hate everyone of another colour"), as I think it's quite rare in the West now - even the head of the American Nazi Party said he was voting for Obama...
Briefly on the commernts on me - many thanks to RT, and belated apologies to JJ for saying you were stalking me, since you've obviously taken it more woundingly than it was intended - it was meant as a pretty casual snipe and not as a deeply hostile comment. Shall we bury any hatchets for New Year? I always read your comments with interest, and we can agree to differ on HS2, maybe.
As for Square Root's query, which I'd not seen before (I don't always have time to read the comments), I try to avoid commenting on people's character, appearance, etc. I do comment on the public's view of policies and perceived political impact of candidates' political styles. Commenting on the presence or absence of incumbency bonus is IMO fair enough and mildly relevant to the site's purpose.
1. The overcrowding view. "We're full up. Nothing against foreigners, but Britain is overcrowded, so we must find other solutions."
2. The labour shortage view. "We need to be selective, taking people we need and turning awsy those we don't. Yes to brain surgeons, no to farmers."
3. The cultural view. "We aren't necessarily overcrowded, but we need people who are comfortable integrating and being like us."
4. The benefits view. "Freedom of movement is fine, but people should pay for benefits, so rights should be accrued gradually, not instantly on arrival."
5. The freedom view. "It's an important part of life that we should be able to experience different cultures. People should be free to come and go as they please."
6. The diversity view. "It's too restrictive to only want one culture. The future is diversity, so our kids can pick the best from many cultures. We don't want them to be all like us."
Let me add another:
7. The equality view. "Economic migration leads to a wealth transfer from the young to the old and from the poor to the rich. The resulting increase in wealth disparity and decrease in socioeconomic mobility is damaging to society as a whole."
De-lurking, although have attended two Dirty Dicks events. O/T - apologies Anecdotal - apologies but once in a life time thing and with a tenuous link to betting! Youngest daughter due date for third baby yesterday and staying with us for the night as we live close to hospital. 4 am I was awakened to warm up car, came inside to be greeted by very noisy daughter and even noisier mother clutching each other - ambulance required swiftish - on the way sir, please keep calm. The ambulance crew talked me through what follows. Having had a long and entirely undistinguished career in education I was elected by means of voting not recognised by MORI to deal with it - 15 minutes later I lifted the new born girl up for a suckle weighing ( told later by midwife) 7 lbs 11 ozs ( why not kgs for NHS!) As usual the members of the family all present in the house had small wagers on weight when the birth commenced - i guessed exactly - and this is what I want to know from the betting experts. I was disqualified on the basis that I lifted the new baby - does my wager still stand please?
Who cares:
Best wishes to you-and-yours in darkest Norfolk! [Assumption based upon moniker....]
The interesting thing about the debate here is that it's showing that there are actually several schools of thought about migration:
1. The overcrowding view. "We're full up. Nothing against foreigners, but Britain is overcrowded, so we must find other solutions."
2. The labour shortage view. "We need to be selective, taking people we need and turning awsy those we don't. Yes to brain surgeons, no to farmers."
3. The cultural view. "We aren't necessarily overcrowded, but we need people who are comfortable integrating and being like us."
4. The benefits view. "Freedom of movement is fine, but people should pay for benefits, so rights should be accrued gradually, not instantly on arrival."
5. The freedom view. "It's an important part of life that we should be able to experience different cultures. People should be free to come and go as they please."
6. The diversity view. "It's too restrictive to only want one culture. The future is diversity, so our kids can pick the best from many cultures. We don't want them to be all like us."
These can overlap, but they don't always - e.g. some don't care if foreigners integrate so long as they contribute economically, others don't care if they contribute so long as they integrate with our culture. Some of them are clearly unworkable without some restrictions (e.g. I incline to "freedom", but wouldn't want 500 million guys from China to arrive tomorrow) but it's a useful starting point to sort out what one instinctively wants. It's also a reminder not to lump together everone who disagrees into one camp (whether "racist", "pro-immigrant", or any other label). I've excluded the pure racist view ("We hate everyone of another colour"), as I think it's quite rare in the West now - even the head of the American Nazi Party said he was voting for Obama...
Briefly on the commernts on me - many thanks to RT, and belated apologies to JJ for saying you were stalking me, since you've obviously taken it more woundingly than it was intended - it was meant as a pretty casual snipe and not as a deeply hostile comment. Shall we bury any hatchets for New Year? I always read your comments with interest, and we can agree to differ on HS2, maybe.
As for Square Root's query, which I'd not seen before (I don't always have time to read the comments), I try to avoid commenting on people's character, appearance, etc. I do comment on the public's view of policies and perceived political impact of candidates' political styles. Commenting on the presence or absence of incumbency bonus is IMO fair enough and mildly relevant to the site's purpose.
How about Labour's view 97-2010 - "We think immigration is a broadly good thing and the numbers coming here shouldn't really be an issue"
If you were pro immigration without controls then you would probably say disagree.
Yup, I'd disagree with that. I know quite a few migrant workers in Japan, especially Americans, who don't learn Japanese. I think they're missing out, but it's their call - I certainly don't think they should be stopped from living here because of it.
But we then let people claim benefits when the work dries up. I bet the Japanese don't.
You fail to draw a distinction between "live here" and "live here at someone else's expense".
But since you ask, yes, if I lost my job I'd be eligible for unemployment benefits.
But would you actually be able to claim them?
"Japan has traditionally been hard on welfare recipients … Applicants are expected to turn to their relatives or use up their savings before getting benefits. Welfare is considered less of an entitlement than a shameful handout."
PS In general you shouldn't believe anything you read about Japan in the western press. The exception is the NYT's current (not 2007) reporter, Hiroko Tabuchi.
James Bartholomew wrote what I thought was an excellent article exploring possible explanations for Japan's low rate of illegitimate births. Do you consider his reporting accurate?
"Here in Britain, 46 per cent of all births are outside marriage. In America it is 41 per cent and in France 54 per cent. In Japan, the figure barely scrapes above 2 per cent.
Japanese morality regarding lone parenting is based around the perceived best interests of the child. You may think, ‘Well, hang on! We in the West care about children, too!’ Up to a point, yes. But the Japanese believe something that many people in the West only half-believe or only believe when it suits them: that the interests of children are clearly best served by having two, married parents. They therefore think it wrong — or shameful — knowingly and intentionally to bring a child into the world without that arrangement."
De-lurking, although have attended two Dirty Dicks events. O/T - apologies Anecdotal - apologies but once in a life time thing and with a tenuous link to betting! Youngest daughter due date for third baby yesterday and staying with us for the night as we live close to hospital. 4 am I was awakened to warm up car, came inside to be greeted by very noisy daughter and even noisier mother clutching each other - ambulance required swiftish - on the way sir, please keep calm. The ambulance crew talked me through what follows. Having had a long and entirely undistinguished career in education I was elected by means of voting not recognised by MORI to deal with it - 15 minutes later I lifted the new born girl up for a suckle weighing ( told later by midwife) 7 lbs 11 ozs ( why not kgs for NHS!) As usual the members of the family all present in the house had small wagers on weight when the birth commenced - i guessed exactly - and this is what I want to know from the betting experts. I was disqualified on the basis that I lifted the new baby - does my wager still stand please?
If that was even close to a typical day in your life you should post more often so we can enjoy the vicarious excitment. Congratulations.
De-lurking, although have attended two Dirty Dicks events. O/T - apologies Anecdotal - apologies but once in a life time thing and with a tenuous link to betting! Youngest daughter due date for third baby yesterday and staying with us for the night as we live close to hospital. 4 am I was awakened to warm up car, came inside to be greeted by very noisy daughter and even noisier mother clutching each other - ambulance required swiftish - on the way sir, please keep calm. The ambulance crew talked me through what follows. Having had a long and entirely undistinguished career in education I was elected by means of voting not recognised by MORI to deal with it - 15 minutes later I lifted the new born girl up for a suckle weighing ( told later by midwife) 7 lbs 11 ozs ( why not kgs for NHS!) As usual the members of the family all present in the house had small wagers on weight when the birth commenced - i guessed exactly - and this is what I want to know from the betting experts. I was disqualified on the basis that I lifted the new baby - does my wager still stand please?
No. Clearly disqualified on two counts :
Firstly you were obviously insider trading and weighted the baby and odds accordingly.
Secondly and more importantly you should recognize that no way does any grand-parent make any money from their grandchildren - It's give, give, give all the way !!
Oh .... and many congratulations. Losing money in such a beautiful cause is a great blessing.
De-lurking, although have attended two Dirty Dicks events. O/T - apologies Anecdotal - apologies but once in a life time thing and with a tenuous link to betting! Youngest daughter due date for third baby yesterday and staying with us for the night as we live close to hospital. 4 am I was awakened to warm up car, came inside to be greeted by very noisy daughter and even noisier mother clutching each other - ambulance required swiftish - on the way sir, please keep calm. The ambulance crew talked me through what follows. Having had a long and entirely undistinguished career in education I was elected by means of voting not recognised by MORI to deal with it - 15 minutes later I lifted the new born girl up for a suckle weighing ( told later by midwife) 7 lbs 11 ozs ( why not kgs for NHS!) As usual the members of the family all present in the house had small wagers on weight when the birth commenced - i guessed exactly - and this is what I want to know from the betting experts. I was disqualified on the basis that I lifted the new baby - does my wager still stand please?
Of course you should be disqualified. You have clearly admitted allowing the baby to suckle in order to increase her weight to land your wager. Oh, and well done and congratulations.
Why not kilograms for the NHS? Well, why kilograms to weigh babies? Where the Americans got it right and we sort of half-right is in recognising that adopting SI or metric units for scientific and technical purposes does not mean we should not use imperial measurements -- often far more convenient -- in real life. And if we must, it should only be after the French have agreed to rename the kilogram so the base unit of mass does not already have the "kilo" prefix. (And yes, I do know Michael Gove is forcing our schoolchildren to measure each other in centimetres -- itself an admission that the metre is not fit for purpose.)
Sven mentions China. Sven's current salary (based upon numerous posts) seem China-focused (through 'charaties'). Sven even posits that England would not welcome "500-million Chinese".
Sven is a [MODERATED]! Haiwei may have earned Lord "Taffy" Lardarse of Humberside a Professorship' but China has no need for a future Norwegian...
@NickPalmer That's a good analysis. Different people care about different aspects of immigration. It's a shocking failure on the part of all of our politicians to fail to pick through those different strands of thought to try to build a consensus that is good for the economy and take the public with them.
This is a subject where our mainstream politicians should be leading, but instead are being herded by predatory forces.
Whilst cricket loving PBers have been sobbing overnight, or indeed for some weeks now in dismay, let's lift the gloom by tickling our political cricketing grey matter with a little brain teaser !!
Now without cheating via the usual suspects by the usual suspects ....
There have been at least a few dozen British parliamentarians who have played first class cricket and gone on to become MPs. However only three of these MP's have also become government ministers.
Who are they, which teams did they play for and which constituencies did they serve ?
I know that Peter Eckersley who was captain of Lancashire in the inter war years later became a Conservative MP in Manchester but I don't think he became a minister. I suspect some of the Gentleman players of the 18th and 19th centuries went into Parliament but I can't pin any down at the moment.
On a related issue I see that Sachin Tendulkar has been appointed as a member of the upper house in India.
The first half of that piece is evidence-based and mostly correct, the second half is evidence-free predjudice-based bollocks.
How is it "prejudice based bollocks"?
He identifies an anomaly, and offers a hypothesis.
"There are almost as many divorced lone parents in Japan as there are in western countries. So the Japanese are quite willing to change their ways like other countries when it comes to getting rid of unwanted spouses. Yet having babies outside marriage is still considered quite wrong."
Whilst cricket loving PBers have been sobbing overnight, or indeed for some weeks now in dismay, let's lift the gloom by tickling our political cricketing grey matter with a little brain teaser !!
Now without cheating via the usual suspects by the usual suspects ....
There have been at least a few dozen British parliamentarians who have played first class cricket and gone on to become MPs. However only three of these MP's have also become government ministers.
Who are they, which teams did they play for and which constituencies did they serve ?
I know that Peter Eckersley who was captain of Lancashire in the inter war years later became a Conservative MP in Manchester but I don't think he became a minister. I suspect some of the Gentleman players of the 18th and 19th centuries went into Parliament but I can't pin any down at the moment.
On a related issue I see that Sachin Tendulkar has been appointed as a member of the upper house in India.
Thanks for that contribution. Eckersley was killed on active service in 1940 whilst in the Fleet Air Arm but didn't serve as a minister.
There were quite a large number of first class cricketing parliamentarians in the 19th century, one of whom is part of the quiz question. The other a much more recent member who also had two other family members serve in government.
The rifle used a Metford-Pritchitt cartridge that required the use of a heavy paper tube containing 2½ drams (68 grains) of musket powder and a 530-grain (34 g), pure lead bullet. As the bullet incorporated no annular grease rings like the French and American minié ball bullets introduced in 1847, it was wrapped with a strip of greased paper to facilitate loading. The cartridge itself was covered with a thin mixture of beeswax and linseed oil for waterproofing (although rumours abounded that it was cow or pork fat).
The phrase "You can lead a horse to water...." comes to mind....
Vastly more than that if you include tax credits. And they ALL use the NHS to which they have contributed precisely £0.00p, if they are "recent". .
As a group EU immigrants contribute a lot more to the UK exchequer than they take out. You should be rolling out the red carpet to us regardless of what languages we choose to speak!
Whats the contribution compared to non EU migrants ?
IIUC it works out as EU migrants big plus, non-EU migrants small minus, net small plus. This fits with normal free-market intuitions about government: The immigration the government is able to try to micro-manage makes a loss, whereas the immigration the government is forbidden from tinkering with makes a profit.
Maybe, but maybe just a coincidence that the EU migrants are "better quality". In any case, surely we should be working on making that "small net plus" into a bigger one. You can always improve the position.
tim used to post some factoid about immigrants being 30% less likely to claim benefits than natives, or somesuch. Well, fair enough, but as people should be coming here to work and improve their lives, that figure should be 80-90% less likely to claim benefits.
Though it won't be a bad series financially for me, it could have been better. Main mistake was to overestimate that England were anything other than garbage.
It's a good job England aren't facing South Africa in the cricket.
On the plus side the great Jacques Kallis has just got a century in his last test. Surely the best all rounder in the history of the game. Even without him, however, Steyn and Morkel would have our batting line up for breakfast, lunch and tea. In fact we would never get to tea would we?
Australia have played some good cricket but the difference in quality when watching SA and India is somewhat concerning.
It's a good job England aren't facing South Africa in the cricket.
On the plus side the great Jacques Kallis has just got a century in his last test. Surely the best all rounder in the history of the game. Even without him, however, Steyn and Morkel would have our batting line up for breakfast, lunch and tea. In fact we would never get to tea would we?
Australia have played some good cricket but the difference in quality when watching SA and India is somewhat concerning.
Debatable, but his batting and bowling averages are both in line with Sir Garry Sobers.
Whilst cricket loving PBers have been sobbing overnight, or indeed for some weeks now in dismay, let's lift the gloom by tickling our political cricketing grey matter with a little brain teaser !!
Now without cheating via the usual suspects by the usual suspects ....
There have been at least a few dozen British parliamentarians who have played first class cricket and gone on to become MPs. However only three of these MP's have also become government ministers.
Who are they, which teams did they play for and which constituencies did they serve ?
One was Walter Monckton, Solicitor-General and SoS for Defence, MP for Bristol West.
The other was Sam Silkin, Attorney-General, MP for Dulwich.
Answer to 19th century 1st class cricketer/government minister :
John Manners-Sutton.
Scion of the Manners family/Dukes of Rutland. He played for Cambridge University and the MCC 1832-36 and was Conservative MP for Cambridge 1839-47. Manners served as Under Secretary of State for the Home Department in Sir Robert Peel's second administration and later become a senior colonial administrator, eventually succeeding his brother as the third Viscount Canterbury.
One more to find - further clue :
Would your brother expect legal advice as he passed you en-route to Cabinet ?
You have to love the DUP - refusing to negotiate on a Sunday; for a party whose raison d'etre is to maintain the link to GB they make a good stab at making Northern Ireland seem very foreign to ordinary British people.
Answer to 19th century 1st class cricketer/government minister :
John Manners-Sutton.
Scion of the Manners family/Dukes of Rutland. He played for Cambridge University and the MCC 1832-36 and was Conservative MP for Cambridge 1839-47. Manners served as Under Secretary of State for the Home Department in Sir Robert Peel's second administration and later become a senior colonial administrator, eventually succeeding his brother as the third Viscount Canterbury.
One more to find - further clue :
Would your brother expect legal advice as he passed you en-route to Cabinet ?
You forgot Monckton, who played for the Combined Universities in 1911...
Whilst cricket loving PBers have been sobbing overnight, or indeed for some weeks now in dismay, let's lift the gloom by tickling our political cricketing grey matter with a little brain teaser !!
Now without cheating via the usual suspects by the usual suspects ....
There have been at least a few dozen British parliamentarians who have played first class cricket and gone on to become MPs. However only three of these MP's have also become government ministers.
Who are they, which teams did they play for and which constituencies did they serve ?
One was Walter Monckton, Solicitor-General and SoS for Defence, MP for Bristol West.
The other was Sam Silkin, Attorney-General, MP for Dulwich.
Thanks Rod.
Sam Silkin played for Cambridge University and Glamorgan in 1938. Subsequently he was Labour MP for Dulwich and served as Attorney General in the Wilson and Callaghan governments of 74-79. His brother John was in the Cabinet as SoS for Agriculture.
Their father Lewis Silkin served in the Attlee government as Town Planning minister. He was subsequently enobled as Baron Silkin. The barony has the distinction of being the first to be disclaimed twice, firstly by the elder son Arthur and secondly in 2001 by his nephew, son of Sam Silkin
I didn't include Walter Monckton as although he played in one match for the Combined Universities in 1911, there is dispute as to the status of the match, however your other details are correct.
Comments
In reality it's a poorly phrased question that doesnt lend itself to the kind of conclusions you or the Observer (or anyone else with an agenda) are trying to draw.
It has been done so by various prominent posters on this site.
Might as well have asked if people prefer good eggs in their egg boxes.
Cut UK Border strength by half, Save zillions. They are a waste of time anyway. WE need new taxpayers to zoom ahead of Germany by 2030.
What percentage get housing benefit/child benefit/tax credits/unlimited free medical care/unlimited free schooling?
Laughable how you are claiming credit for the coalition's economic successes.
" If pigs suddenly sprouted wings and started flying and began urinating on everybody should the government issue free umbrellas?"
Toodles.....
The argument was posited by Weathercock: It's premise was that 1% of all NHS expenditure was spent on Eastern-Europeans. Mr Topper[?] opined that that was fair (as the 600,000 East-Europeans represent ~1% of the population).
Now, as you are all well aware by now, correlation =/= causation: Lacking Dr Fox's insight I feel Topper's argument is bunkum! The whole premise of open-migration is based upon importing the young; the fit; the resourceful. If we are importing the demographics of the UK [pro-rata NHS-expenditure] then a one-for-one analysis would imply that we are importing the aged; the crippled; the mentally challenged; and as likely a consumer and not a producer.
People who support the unholy alliance of Junior and Aye should at least think-through their arguments: If current labour imports are not effective substitutes for the current Labour-pool then WTF are we importing...?
* Topping perchance...?
"Japan has traditionally been hard on welfare recipients … Applicants are expected to turn to their relatives or use up their savings before getting benefits. Welfare is considered less of an entitlement than a shameful handout."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/asia/12japan.html
Having said that, the Liberal Democrats do have a perfectly sensible immigration policy and have , to some extent, curbed the worst excesses of the Tories.
They failed on the student numbers though. This was an own goal for Britain.
'If you don't like the result of a poll, try to trash it !'
Clearly all the other polls that for the past year have put immigration as the no 2 issue facing the UK are wrong & Observer one is right.
http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2013/11/response-to-cream-paper-on-contribution-of-migrants-to-economy.html
PS In general you shouldn't believe anything you read about Japan in the western press. The exception is the NYT's current (not 2007) reporter, Hiroko Tabuchi.
"If you don't like the result of a poll, try to trash it !"
The poll result sounds entirely logical, I'm not trashing it. As always, it's the conclusions that are sometimes erroneously drawn (via headlines) that I have problems with.
As the famous saying goes, newspapers use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamp post - for support not for illumination. You can't blame the lamp post.
Youngest daughter due date for third baby yesterday and staying with us for the night as we live close to hospital. 4 am I was awakened to warm up car, came inside to be greeted by very noisy daughter and even noisier mother clutching each other - ambulance required swiftish - on the way sir, please keep calm. The ambulance crew talked me through what follows.
Having had a long and entirely undistinguished career in education I was elected by means of voting not recognised by MORI to deal with it - 15 minutes later I lifted the new born girl up for a suckle weighing ( told later by midwife) 7 lbs 11 ozs ( why not kgs for NHS!)
As usual the members of the family all present in the house had small wagers on weight when the birth commenced - i guessed exactly - and this is what I want to know from the betting experts. I was disqualified on the basis that I lifted the new baby - does my wager still stand please?
"Here in Britain, 46 per cent of all births are outside marriage. In America it is 41 per cent and in France 54 per cent. In Japan, the figure barely scrapes above 2 per cent.
Japanese morality regarding lone parenting is based around the perceived best interests of the child. You may think, ‘Well, hang on! We in the West care about children, too!’ Up to a point, yes. But the Japanese believe something that many people in the West only half-believe or only believe when it suits them: that the interests of children are clearly best served by having two, married parents. They therefore think it wrong — or shameful — knowingly and intentionally to bring a child into the world without that arrangement."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6827388/legitimate-question/
1. The overcrowding view. "We're full up. Nothing against foreigners, but Britain is overcrowded, so we must find other solutions."
2. The labour shortage view. "We need to be selective, taking people we need and turning awsy those we don't. Yes to brain surgeons, no to farmers."
3. The cultural view. "We aren't necessarily overcrowded, but we need people who are comfortable integrating and being like us."
4. The benefits view. "Freedom of movement is fine, but people should pay for benefits, so rights should be accrued gradually, not instantly on arrival."
5. The freedom view. "It's an important part of life that we should be able to experience different cultures. People should be free to come and go as they please."
6. The diversity view. "It's too restrictive to only want one culture. The future is diversity, so our kids can pick the best from many cultures. We don't want them to be all like us."
These can overlap, but they don't always - e.g. some don't care if foreigners integrate so long as they contribute economically, others don't care if they contribute so long as they integrate with our culture. Some of them are clearly unworkable without some restrictions (e.g. I incline to "freedom", but wouldn't want 500 million guys from China to arrive tomorrow) but it's a useful starting point to sort out what one instinctively wants. It's also a reminder not to lump together everone who disagrees into one camp (whether "racist", "pro-immigrant", or any other label). I've excluded the pure racist view ("We hate everyone of another colour"), as I think it's quite rare in the West now - even the head of the American Nazi Party said he was voting for Obama...
Briefly on the commernts on me - many thanks to RT, and belated apologies to JJ for saying you were stalking me, since you've obviously taken it more woundingly than it was intended - it was meant as a pretty casual snipe and not as a deeply hostile comment. Shall we bury any hatchets for New Year? I always read your comments with interest, and we can agree to differ on HS2, maybe.
As for Square Root's query, which I'd not seen before (I don't always have time to read the comments), I try to avoid commenting on people's character, appearance, etc. I do comment on the public's view of policies and perceived political impact of candidates' political styles. Commenting on the presence or absence of incumbency bonus is IMO fair enough and mildly relevant to the site's purpose.
7. The equality view. "Economic migration leads to a wealth transfer from the young to the old and from the poor to the rich. The resulting increase in wealth disparity and decrease in socioeconomic mobility is damaging to society as a whole."
Best wishes to you-and-yours in darkest Norfolk! [Assumption based upon moniker....]
"Errm How many came ?"
"Really !?!"
"Wow we weren't expecting that !"
Firstly you were obviously insider trading and weighted the baby and odds accordingly.
Secondly and more importantly you should recognize that no way does any grand-parent make any money from their grandchildren - It's give, give, give all the way !!
Oh .... and many congratulations. Losing money in such a beautiful cause is a great blessing.
Why not kilograms for the NHS? Well, why kilograms to weigh babies? Where the Americans got it right and we sort of half-right is in recognising that adopting SI or metric units for scientific and technical purposes does not mean we should not use imperial measurements -- often far more convenient -- in real life. And if we must, it should only be after the French have agreed to rename the kilogram so the base unit of mass does not already have the "kilo" prefix. (And yes, I do know Michael Gove is forcing our schoolchildren to measure each other in centimetres -- itself an admission that the metre is not fit for purpose.)
Sven is a [MODERATED]! Haiwei may have earned Lord "Taffy" Lardarse of Humberside a Professorship' but China has no need for a future Norwegian...
This is a subject where our mainstream politicians should be leading, but instead are being herded by predatory forces.
On a related issue I see that Sachin Tendulkar has been appointed as a member of the upper house in India.
He identifies an anomaly, and offers a hypothesis.
"There are almost as many divorced lone parents in Japan as there are in western countries. So the Japanese are quite willing to change their ways like other countries when it comes to getting rid of unwanted spouses. Yet having babies outside marriage is still considered quite wrong."
There were quite a large number of first class cricketing parliamentarians in the 19th century, one of whom is part of the quiz question. The other a much more recent member who also had two other family members serve in government.
“does my wager still stand please?” - Ans: No, the ladies have you out numbered 3/1. : )
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24487017
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangal_Pandey#The_Enfield_rifle_and_cartridge The phrase "You can lead a horse to water...." comes to mind....
tim used to post some factoid about immigrants being 30% less likely to claim benefits than natives, or somesuch. Well, fair enough, but as people should be coming here to work and improve their lives, that figure should be 80-90% less likely to claim benefits.
Australia have played some good cricket but the difference in quality when watching SA and India is somewhat concerning.
Schumacher has suffered a head injury whilst skiing. Thankfully, it's been reported it's not a serious injury:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25542340
Like all Kippers, Farage doesn't like it up 'em.
The other was Sam Silkin, Attorney-General, MP for Dulwich.
John Manners-Sutton.
Scion of the Manners family/Dukes of Rutland. He played for Cambridge University and the MCC 1832-36 and was Conservative MP for Cambridge 1839-47. Manners served as Under Secretary of State for the Home Department in Sir Robert Peel's second administration and later become a senior colonial administrator, eventually succeeding his brother as the third Viscount Canterbury.
One more to find - further clue :
Would your brother expect legal advice as he passed you en-route to Cabinet ?
Sam Silkin played for Cambridge University and Glamorgan in 1938. Subsequently he was Labour MP for Dulwich and served as Attorney General in the Wilson and Callaghan governments of 74-79. His brother John was in the Cabinet as SoS for Agriculture.
Their father Lewis Silkin served in the Attlee government as Town Planning minister. He was subsequently enobled as Baron Silkin. The barony has the distinction of being the first to be disclaimed twice, firstly by the elder son Arthur and secondly in 2001 by his nephew, son of Sam Silkin
I didn't include Walter Monckton as although he played in one match for the Combined Universities in 1911, there is dispute as to the status of the match, however your other details are correct.