UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
JustAnotherLogin said:
Here's a thought. If the Kippers on this thread (and lets be fair, they are the majority), get their way, it will be the first time since WWII that a party or coalition has been voted out, who left unemployment lower than when they came to power.
Ignoring the party politics, that is a fairly shocking fact
It's not that surprising. There's only been 7 changes of government since 1945 and they are linked to economic performance. Ignoring the party politics, that is a fairly shocking fact
powerstroke said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Here's a thought. If the Kippers on this thread (and lets be fair, they are the majority), get their way, it will be the first time since WWII that a party or coalition has been voted out, who left unemployment lower than when they came to power.
Ignoring the party politics, that is a fairly shocking fact
Why do you think they will be voted out?? Lib dums are toast stick a fork in em there done and the jockanese well looks like they are voting for sticklebacks SNP no one seems to have a good word for labour this side of the border either so will milliband beat CMD's blue labour ?? Maybe Ukip will take labour and Tory seats and it will average out ?? Hopefully they will hold the balance of power and we will once again have a proper conservative government..Ignoring the party politics, that is a fairly shocking fact
Arguably the SNP becoming the 3rd largest party (and its highly possible) will be the worst possible result for the country and the Eurosceptic cause as a whole. The tail will be wagging the dog at home and between the two of them they will lap up whatever Brussels wants to ask of them.
Goes without saying they will not repeal the 5 year term thing either so we would be in for 5 years of it....minimum. And I say minimum because you can bet your last groat that they would also make subtle but significant changes that will make it nigh on impossible for anyone else to win in 2020 either. The idea that UKIP or a more right wing Tory party would rise from the ashes of 2015 to win in 2020 is, frankly, laughable IMO.
powerstroke said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Here's a thought. If the Kippers on this thread (and lets be fair, they are the majority), get their way, it will be the first time since WWII that a party or coalition has been voted out, who left unemployment lower than when they came to power.
Ignoring the party politics, that is a fairly shocking fact
Why do you think they will be voted out?? Lib dums are toast stick a fork in em there done and the jockanese well looks like they are voting for sticklebacks SNP no one seems to have a good word for labour this side of the border either so will milliband beat CMD's blue labour ?? Maybe Ukip will take labour and Tory seats and it will average out ?? Hopefully they will hold the balance of power and we will once again have a proper conservative government..Ignoring the party politics, that is a fairly shocking fact
JustAnotherLogin said:
Here's a thought. If the Kippers on this thread (and lets be fair, they are the majority), get their way, it will be the first time since WWII that a party or coalition has been voted out, who left unemployment lower than when they came to power.
Ignoring the party politics, that is a fairly shocking fact
Evidence? AFAIK every Labour government since WW2 has left office with higher unemployment then when it was elected.Ignoring the party politics, that is a fairly shocking fact
s2art said:
Evidence? AFAIK every Labour government since WW2 has left office with higher unemployment then when it was elected.
I think that's his "point." Basically the cycle has been that governments have changed when unemployment has risen. This government is on course to get kicked out despite the fact that unemployment has fallen since 2010. I'm not really sure why it's "shocking" rather than just a mildly interesting quirk.JustAnotherLogin said:
Here's a thought. If the Kippers on this thread (and lets be fair, they are the majority), get their way, it will be the first time since WWII that a party or coalition has been voted out, who left unemployment lower than when they came to power.
Ignoring the party politics, that is a fairly shocking fact
Hey, someone believes "official" figures. Now there's a novelty.Ignoring the party politics, that is a fairly shocking fact
turbobloke said:
steveT350C said:
Esseesse said:
steveT350C said:
Indeed. A thought about the kinds of arguments leveled against UKIP in the linked article... idiots, serious racists, sexist, homophobic, liken UKIP to Nazis.Why is it then that the only real reason I resist putting a UKIP sign in my front garden come election time (or the "I'm voting UKIP" poster that came through my door in the recent EU elections) is that I fear that a brick may end up in my living room. I don't think this feeling is shared by people displaying their support for Lib/Lab/Con/Green.
Some very reticent folk might not even go so far as to declare their voting intentions to pollsters given the amount of bile directed at kippers.
I truly now believe this country is going to have the shock of its life. This really could be the voice of the silent majority.
AJS- said:
s2art said:
Evidence? AFAIK every Labour government since WW2 has left office with higher unemployment then when it was elected.
I think that's his "point." Basically the cycle has been that governments have changed when unemployment has risen. This government is on course to get kicked out despite the fact that unemployment has fallen since 2010. I'm not really sure why it's "shocking" rather than just a mildly interesting quirk.Esseesse said:
I don't know the numbers, but how many on the often talked about zero hours contracts? Do these people really count as 'empolyed' by anyone other than the government? Also don't their figures discount anyone not in a job but is not actively looking for work (i.e. not on jobseekers)?
Depends on the contract,depends on the job. My CofE is zero-hour, but I never work less than 60, usually over 70, and receive no benefits.http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29910497
"Immigrants from the 10 countries which joined the EU in 2004 contributed more to the UK than they took out in benefits, according to a new study.
They added £4.96bn more in taxes in the years to 2011 than they took out in public services.
That is according to the calculations of the report by University College London's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration.
The analysis includes migrants' share of all public services costs.
It includes costs that increase when the population increases, such as health and education, and those that stay fixed, such as the armed forces and defence.
If the fixed costs are excluded, the net benefit of immigration from countries such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic would more than double to £10.5bn."
"Immigrants from the 10 countries which joined the EU in 2004 contributed more to the UK than they took out in benefits, according to a new study.
They added £4.96bn more in taxes in the years to 2011 than they took out in public services.
That is according to the calculations of the report by University College London's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration.
The analysis includes migrants' share of all public services costs.
It includes costs that increase when the population increases, such as health and education, and those that stay fixed, such as the armed forces and defence.
If the fixed costs are excluded, the net benefit of immigration from countries such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic would more than double to £10.5bn."
problem is, who believes that?
which then begs the next question, who commissioned and paid for this bit of work?
when you get phrases like:
"The analysis includes migrants' share of all public services costs.
It includes costs that increase when the population increases, such as health and education, and those that stay fixed, such as the armed forces and defence."
without explanation, I bet they have just pro-rata the costs against headcount, as opposed to looking at the real costs of educating a child who does not speak English, etc.
to then claim migrants from outside the EU cost us more (especially when you consider the headcount in the NHS etc), basically, I smell a rat.
which then begs the next question, who commissioned and paid for this bit of work?
when you get phrases like:
"The analysis includes migrants' share of all public services costs.
It includes costs that increase when the population increases, such as health and education, and those that stay fixed, such as the armed forces and defence."
without explanation, I bet they have just pro-rata the costs against headcount, as opposed to looking at the real costs of educating a child who does not speak English, etc.
to then claim migrants from outside the EU cost us more (especially when you consider the headcount in the NHS etc), basically, I smell a rat.
Here you go.
Knock yourself out...
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
I await your analysis of the findings therein.
Knock yourself out...
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
I await your analysis of the findings therein.
zygalski said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29910497
"Immigrants from the 10 countries which joined the EU in 2004 contributed more to the UK than they took out in benefits, according to a new study.
They added £4.96bn more in taxes in the years to 2011 than they took out in public services.
That is according to the calculations of the report by University College London's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration.
The analysis includes migrants' share of all public services costs.
It includes costs that increase when the population increases, such as health and education, and those that stay fixed, such as the armed forces and defence.
If the fixed costs are excluded, the net benefit of immigration from countries such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic would more than double to £10.5bn."
And if we were able to choose the ones we want they would of made even more money"Immigrants from the 10 countries which joined the EU in 2004 contributed more to the UK than they took out in benefits, according to a new study.
They added £4.96bn more in taxes in the years to 2011 than they took out in public services.
That is according to the calculations of the report by University College London's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration.
The analysis includes migrants' share of all public services costs.
It includes costs that increase when the population increases, such as health and education, and those that stay fixed, such as the armed forces and defence.
If the fixed costs are excluded, the net benefit of immigration from countries such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic would more than double to £10.5bn."
Care to disagree?
zygalski said:
Here you go.
Knock yourself out...
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
I await your analysis of the findings therein.
well, just from a quick skim-read, they have indeed just avenged the costs and their data sample appears to be 60,000 then scaled up.Knock yourself out...
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
I await your analysis of the findings therein.
the real confusion seems to be over what you call an immigrant in terms of 1st/2nd generation etc.
I see a lot of words and explanations, but an awful lot of it is assumptions and guesswork, especially when you get to the indirect tax's they are adding up.
I guess the trouble with doing something like this is it's dam near impossible to get real numbers without a huge amount of effort as the base data just does not exist.
Scuffers said:
well, just from a quick skim-read, they have indeed just avenged the costs and their data sample appears to be 60,000 then scaled up.
the real confusion seems to be over what you call an immigrant in terms of 1st/2nd generation etc.
I see a lot of words and explanations, but an awful lot of it is assumptions and guesswork, especially when you get to the indirect tax's they are adding up.
I guess the trouble with doing something like this is it's dam near impossible to get real numbers without a huge amount of effort as the base data just does not exist.
I think to be fair, the research I linked to deserves more than 10 minutes worth of skim-reading before any sort of conclusion can be drawn.the real confusion seems to be over what you call an immigrant in terms of 1st/2nd generation etc.
I see a lot of words and explanations, but an awful lot of it is assumptions and guesswork, especially when you get to the indirect tax's they are adding up.
I guess the trouble with doing something like this is it's dam near impossible to get real numbers without a huge amount of effort as the base data just does not exist.
if you do some basic maths on their numbers, the £5Bn from 1995-2011 is for 2,314,078 EU migrants over 15 (their figures), so if you then divide that out, each migrant is worth £135 a year.
would not take much of a miss-calculation to wipe that out at all.
I also see no figures in the report to cover the Policing/criminal justice system (as in just what proportion of the costs are dealing with migrants?)
would not take much of a miss-calculation to wipe that out at all.
I also see no figures in the report to cover the Policing/criminal justice system (as in just what proportion of the costs are dealing with migrants?)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff