UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[McWigglebum4th]

zygalski said:

McWigglebum4th said:

So what is the big problem about us kippers idea of being able to choose the immigrants we want


not just the white ones

All EU residents are white?
News to me.

Nicely deflected


jump up and down and point at the nasty racist

don't answer the question

Take the moral high ground


You know as well as me the vast majority of EU natives are white


So i ask again



So what is the big problem about us kippers idea of being able to choose the immigrants we want

[Timsta]

Just read his c.v. He's not exactly impartial, is he.

[zygalski]

McWigglebum4th said:

So what is the big problem about us kippers idea of being able to choose the immigrants we want

Freedom of movement within the EU.
What if, for instance relatives of yours wanted to flog their house in the UK & live in Spain but were prevented from moving freely within the EU because they are retired & not directly contributing to the Spanish economy. Presumably you think that is fair treatment too?

Edited by zygalski on Wednesday 5th November 08:09

[FiF]

Migration watch are in the process of pulling that report apart.

Meanwhile selective reporting of information from the individual who only recently complained about, well, err, selective reporting of data. Oops.


Still doesn't alter the unanswered question that which party is the one which should get the support of a voter who has immigration way down on their particular issues of concern, but has firstly the lack of democracy and accountability of the EU as one major issue closely followed by the 1.3 trillion and energy supply insecurity and risk to energy intensive businesses and large employers that the AGW/MMCC idiocy has brought us.

1.3 trillion which is a bit of a bigger number than the pocket change discussed in that report.

Next.

[PRTVR]

Timsta said:

Just read his c.v. He's not exactly impartial, is he.

I wonder how much the EU pays the UCL in "grants"

[AJS-]

Esseesse said:

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.

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)?

Well every government massages the figures somehow or another so I'll assume it evens out. It is fair to say the economy is in better shape now than it was in 2010.

[McWigglebum4th]

zygalski said:

McWigglebum4th said:

So what is the big problem about us kippers idea of being able to choose the immigrants we want

Freedom of movement within the EU.
What if, for instance relatives of yours wanted to flog their house in the UK & live in Spain but were prevented from moving freely within the EU because they are retired & not directly contributing to the Spanish economy. Presumably you think that is fair treatment too?

Edited by zygalski on Wednesday 5th November 08:09

Sounds perfectly fair to me

Why should my relatives be allowed to go and scab off a country they have not contributed towards?


So i ask again


So what is the big problem about us kippers idea of being able to choose the immigrants we want

[Scuffers]

PRTVR said:

Timsta said:

Just read his c.v. He's not exactly impartial, is he.

I wonder how much the EU pays the UCL in "grants"

quite a bit by the looks of it, two pages of his CV cover it: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/doc/cvdustmann.pdf

[zygalski]

McWigglebum4th said:

Sounds perfectly fair to me

Why should my relatives be allowed to go and scab off a country they have not contributed towards?


So i ask again


So what is the big problem about us kippers idea of being able to choose the immigrants we want

Because we are currently signed up to being part of a free movement zone.

[steveT350C]

Carswell's view.. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellm...


In addition, something not mentioned anywhere is, if scuffer's £135 figure above is correct, 1 native unable to get a job due to over supply of labour from overseas will result in said native having to claim housing, job seekers, child benefits etc.

The total amount of benefits paid to said unemployed native will easily be more than 10x the net revenue generated, £135, by the 1 immigrant who 'took the job'.

[steveT350C]

Guam said:

steveT350C said:

Carswell's view.. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellm...


In addition, something not mentioned anywhere is, if scuffer's £135 figure above is correct, 1 native unable to get a job due to over supply of labour from overseas will result in said native having to claim housing, job seekers, child benefits etc.

The total amount of benefits paid to said unemployed native will easily be more than 10x the net revenue generated, £135, by the 1 immigrant who 'took the job'.

Opportunity cost is an illustration of a capitalist lackey view of society, there will be a section of wall earmarked for you

off to work shortly, not to return until the heat has died down

[brenflys777]

The report seems to be literred with spin as much as data.

Assumptions abound. The cost of 'pure'public services is assumed to be unaffected by increased population. It states other services like waste costs might increase. The authors need to spend some time locked together in a cell with one bucket and note if more people equals more st.

Under VAT and excise they assume immigrant consumption is 80% of native with similar income because 'some' studies suggest so.

I started wading through it but the simplistic way they negatively adjust consumable services and assume that the increased costs of public services are at the average uk rate suggests the conclusion was in no doubt before the analysis.

[AJS-]

Picking these reports apart is pointless. They'll find a way to show whatever they want.

The point is our loss of democratic control over immigration, not some apparent cost or benefit of the current arrangements.

[AJS-]

brenflys777 said:

Under VAT and excise they assume immigrant consumption is 80% of native with similar income because 'some' studies suggest so.

If I read that right, this assumes that they send none of the income they earn here back home, or at least that they send money abroad in the same proportions as UK "natives" do. This seems a bit of a rash assumption to say the least!

[McWigglebum4th]

zygalski said:

McWigglebum4th said:

Sounds perfectly fair to me

Why should my relatives be allowed to go and scab off a country they have not contributed towards?


So i ask again


So what is the big problem about us kippers idea of being able to choose the immigrants we want

Because we are currently signed up to being part of a free movement zone.

you spin like a top


Are you trying to be a tory MP?


I ask again


So what is the big problem about us kippers idea of being able to choose the immigrants we want

[AJS-]

Guam said:

AJS- said:

Picking these reports apart is pointless. They'll find a way to show whatever they want.

The point is our loss of democratic control over immigration, not some apparent cost or benefit of the current arrangements.

Not to mention the ONS admits it has no accurate data on migration it doesn't know how many people are here and /or have left.

Any report based around ONS data on 3 key areas of the economy, Health, Policing and immigration has to be viewed with a truckload of salt (by their own admission and pointed out repeatedly on several threads).

They've got this though



Science! Bags of it.


I might be a dumb kipper who has been left behind in the intervening years, but I studied enough statistics during my economics degree to know that when you see this sort of thing it's likely to be complete nonsense.

[mattmurdock]

AJS- said:

If I read that right, this assumes that they send none of the income they earn here back home, or at least that they send money abroad in the same proportions as UK "natives" do. This seems a bit of a rash assumption to say the least!

They acknowledge that there is no real data to confirm exactly what the percentage of money sent home is, and so take the assumption that instead of spending the 100% a native would spend, they only spend 80% and the rest goes elsewhere. So no, it does not assume they send none of the income they earn here back home, the opposite in fact.

[AJS-]

mattmurdock said:

AJS- said:

If I read that right, this assumes that they send none of the income they earn here back home, or at least that they send money abroad in the same proportions as UK "natives" do. This seems a bit of a rash assumption to say the least!

They acknowledge that there is no real data to confirm exactly what the percentage of money sent home is, and so take the assumption that instead of spending the 100% a native would spend, they only spend 80% and the rest goes elsewhere. So no, it does not assume they send none of the income they earn here back home, the opposite in fact.

It assumes immigrants overall consumption is 80% of natives. Why 80%? There is no real data so it's basically just a guess. I can imagine that it might be a lot less for some.

As I said I'm not saying the report is wrong I'm just saying that like most of these studies it's meaningless because it's based on such unreliable data and such wild assumptions that you might as well just ask some people in a pub.

[Zod]

don4l said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Here's a thought. If the Kippers on this thread (and lets be fair, they are the majority)

Well, the fact that they are a majority shouldn't come as a surprise.

After all, they did get 51% of the vote in the Clacton by-election.


This thread simply reflects public opinion.

You think the majority of voters are UKIP supporters?

[mattmurdock]

Guam said:

AJS- said:

It assumes immigrants overall consumption is 80% of natives. Why 80%? There is no real data so it's basically just a guess. I can imagine that it might be a lot less for some.

As I said I'm not saying the report is wrong I'm just saying that like most of these studies it's meaningless because it's based on such unreliable data and such wild assumptions that you might as well just ask some people in a pub.

C'mon, shame on you both, especially Guam who purports to be a statistician. Are you really saying that this report, which lists out its methodology, takes conservative estimates and has robustness checks on the assumptions and conclusions is little more than guesswork or anecdotal evidence from a man down a pub.

Shame on you both .