UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

Author
Discussion

Mrr T

12,152 posts

264 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
I think the point being missed here is that with some 600,000 immigrants coming here every year, the simple numbers are unsupportable, we already have too many people in the UK for the infrastructure and services we have (and the numbers are far worse in terms of population if you listen to the supermarkets etc).

I see you choose to quote the gross immigration figures not the net which is lower.

Also you say this is unsupportable. Do you have any evidence?

Do not quote the short fall in NHS funding which is mainly due to our aging population. Without immigrates paying taxes this would be getting worst.

Or is the problem that they are all driving on the M40 and making the great leader late for meetings.

Funkycoldribena

7,379 posts

153 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
Scuffers said:
I think the point being missed here is that with some 600,000 immigrants coming here every year, the simple numbers are unsupportable, we already have too many people in the UK for the infrastructure and services we have (and the numbers are far worse in terms of population if you listen to the supermarkets etc).

I see you choose to quote the gross immigration figures not the net which is lower.

Also you say this is unsupportable. Do you have any evidence?

Do not quote the short fall in NHS funding which is mainly due to our aging population. Without immigrates paying taxes this would be getting worst.

Or is the problem that they are all driving on the M40 and making the great leader late for meetings.
Just curious,where would you draw the line? Million a year?2 million?

Mr_B

10,480 posts

242 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Funkycoldribena said:
Just curious,where would you draw the line? Million a year?2 million?
I don't think you're meant to ask that question.

Strawman

6,463 posts

206 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
There is no line to be drawn, there is a demand for workers which isn't being met by the indigenous population for various reasons. Remove that demand and the net migration figures will go negative, maybe Farage and his family could go and live in Germany for a bit that would be a negative 4.

FredClogs

14,041 posts

160 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
scenario8 said:
Arguing the toss over a few morsels of VAT or fuel, tobacco or alcohol duty contributions in a hypothetical discussion seems a bit daft. Overall the average citizen contributes way less than the average citizen consumes - hence the ridiculous national debt. In the lower economic groupings net consumption is enormous.
Ha ha, bloody poor people eh! They fk everything up with their need for health care, policing and public services.



Mrr T

12,152 posts

264 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Strawman said:
How many of those 600,000 are immigrants claiming UK citizenship and how many economic migrants from other EU countries (which have reciprocal health care payment arrangements) say France or even Germany where Farage's wife comes from? How many of those 600,000 have passed stringent visa tests and are coming to do high paid skilled jobs where they will pay a high rate of tax? No use just lumping the total figure together and claiming they are all going to sponging off the NHS.
I suggest its better to look at net immigration not gross.

All the details are here:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_404613.pdf

I am always confused by one aspect of the statistics. Immigration on Study Visa's was 190k. The second largest figure.

However, the figure for exits does not specify them leaving the UK at the end of their study. They may be in the "Other" reason but that is only 50K. Some where something is missing.

My understanding is its not easy to move from a study visa to a work visa so what happens at the end of the courses?

They may stay illegally but would students who can pay £21k a year in fees want to live as illegals.

I always wonder since the report is a statically sample based on the IPS do many students who enter on student visa not realise they are counted as immigrants and then when they exit they therefore do not specify them selves emigrants?

If that is correct the figures would be very different.

blindswelledrat

25,257 posts

231 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I am only an occasional visitor to this thread as it makes me feel sad that to see people so unmoveably entrenched in their phobic views that nothing will ever change their mind, but one thing that stands out every time I look in this thread is that Scruffers appears to have a habit of making bold statements of 'facts' about how foreigners are ruining our country and has yet to substantiate a single thing he has said with any evidence whatsoever.
When challenged he goes for one of two tactics. Either:
1) Ignore the challenge and change the subject
2) Say "It is so obvious, if you need evidence you must be blind. It just stands to reason".

The obvious 3rd option of looking for evidence and posting it, or acknowledging he is wrong is completely alien to him

Mrr T

12,152 posts

264 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Mr_B said:
Funkycoldribena said:
Just curious,where would you draw the line? Million a year?2 million?
I don't think you're meant to ask that question.
You can ask the question and I am happy to answer.

First the figure of 600k is gross immigration, do you ask about 2M gross or net? It matters because if say we had 2M gross immigration and 4M gross emigration we would have a declining population.

Lets assume you mean net. So I do not believe a current net figure of 380K will go up to 2M.

To understand you need to look at the sources of immigration.

1. EU free movement of labour
I am in favour of the of the free movement of labour since it allows us to live and work across the EU with minimal paper work. At the moment we are seeing a net inflow because of a) The new joiners, b) The slow down in many EU economies. The fact is this is likely to be temporary since a) the economies of the new joiners are growing lowering immigration push, b) I do believe the EU will start to grow soon. So we may see some growth in net immigration form this source but it will be 10K not millions. Finally, I do not believe the EU will expand to include any large poor country in the next 10 years, even if it was proposed joining requires unanimous agreement so the UK can impose immigration restrictions. Also with an aging population we need immigration or we will end up like Japan. Net immigration from the EU is in my view essential.

2. Students
This is the second highest figure and as I have posted above I am not sure what it means for UK population growth. I do know the Government has imposed much higher standards on granting student visas.

3. Family members/asylum seekers
This is an area which although small does concern me but any change is dependant on changing the ECHR.

4. Working visas
The Government has complete control over visa issuance so is unlikely to increase.

I can not see any way our current net figure of 380K will ever get to 2M unless the Government wants it to.

4v6

1,098 posts

125 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
YES, YES AND YES.
Ok got it the first time.


NoNeed said:
A sick person is a sick person and as soon as we install a payment system whether that be for a rich american who tried to save a couple of quid on his holiday or a sick Chinese man that came here clinging to the landing gear of a 747, it is there then to be expanded, a thin end of the most dangerous wedge.
Whys that then? You dont expect your fuel for you car to be paid by someone else do you?

If so, hows about giving me 1000 of your pounds for free huh?
Could do with it.


NoNeed said:
It is better to show the world what a great country we are and hope we inspire them to a system that is the same.
A laudible aim but a flawed one.
The main flaw in your argument being that the funds to treat these people come out of the time thats leveraged against taxpayers lives, in other words youre using others lives to pay for free stuff.
Theyre going out using up their lifespans to give others free stuff, the funds being taken against their will.
Thats called slavery no?
If I make you work a proportion of your life and take what you earn youd be a tad narked....or would you?



NoNeed said:
We do some great work in health around the globe all paid for by me and you, I like that, it shows the world what a developed country can do for others.

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/health-in-d...
You remind me of a dog called Odie, runs around all wide eyed and chirpy, smacks into things a lot and gets his dinner for free but never sees any of the bad stuff of life.


NoNeed said:
I don't want to go backwards, I don't want us to be a nation of self interest when what we are talking about is a very small amount of money.
Its not your money to give away. Give me your money or is there NoNeed?

NoNeed said:
Even if we add what you call health tourism to the foreign aid budget it would still be less than 1% of GDP.

Edited by NoNeed on Tuesday 2nd June 19:20
Again, its not yours to give away, its peoples lives being sucked dry to pay for it, thats neither fair nor acceptable.
Nothing is free.

Mr_B

10,480 posts

242 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
Mr_B said:
Funkycoldribena said:
Just curious,where would you draw the line? Million a year?2 million?
I don't think you're meant to ask that question.
You can ask the question and I am happy to answer.

First the figure of 600k is gross immigration, do you ask about 2M gross or net? It matters because if say we had 2M gross immigration and 4M gross emigration we would have a declining population.

Lets assume you mean net. So I do not believe a current net figure of 380K will go up to 2M.

To understand you need to look at the sources of immigration.

1. EU free movement of labour
I am in favour of the of the free movement of labour since it allows us to live and work across the EU with minimal paper work. At the moment we are seeing a net inflow because of a) The new joiners, b) The slow down in many EU economies. The fact is this is likely to be temporary since a) the economies of the new joiners are growing lowering immigration push, b) I do believe the EU will start to grow soon. So we may see some growth in net immigration form this source but it will be 10K not millions. Finally, I do not believe the EU will expand to include any large poor country in the next 10 years, even if it was proposed joining requires unanimous agreement so the UK can impose immigration restrictions. Also with an aging population we need immigration or we will end up like Japan. Net immigration from the EU is in my view essential.

2. Students
This is the second highest figure and as I have posted above I am not sure what it means for UK population growth. I do know the Government has imposed much higher standards on granting student visas.

3. Family members/asylum seekers
This is an area which although small does concern me but any change is dependant on changing the ECHR.

4. Working visas
The Government has complete control over visa issuance so is unlikely to increase.

I can not see any way our current net figure of 380K will ever get to 2M unless the Government wants it to.
I think he meant for how long do you think immigration at 300K a year is sustainable and what you do if you feel it gets to a point where it isn't. So 300k for the next ten years is no problem and all good for the future ?

Strawman

6,463 posts

206 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Mr_B said:
I think he meant for how long do you think immigration at 300K a year is sustainable and what you do if you feel it gets to a point where it isn't. So 300k for the next ten years is no problem and all good for the future ?
It's a sign of a healthy functioning society/economy. 20% of the world's migrants are in the USA. Places like North Korea have almost no immigration.

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Strawman said:
Mr_B said:
I think he meant for how long do you think immigration at 300K a year is sustainable and what you do if you feel it gets to a point where it isn't. So 300k for the next ten years is no problem and all good for the future ?
It's a sign of a healthy functioning society/economy. 20% of the world's migrants are in the USA. Places like North Korea have almost no immigration.
What of the likes of Japan or South Korea, minimal immigration along with a health economy, immigration is not a prerequisite of a health thriving economy.

Mr_B

10,480 posts

242 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Strawman said:
Mr_B said:
I think he meant for how long do you think immigration at 300K a year is sustainable and what you do if you feel it gets to a point where it isn't. So 300k for the next ten years is no problem and all good for the future ?
It's a sign of a healthy functioning society/economy. 20% of the world's migrants are in the USA. Places like North Korea have almost no immigration.
I would agree that it's a healthy sign and most welcome as I'm not proposing to stop immigration, but to control it in numbers and in quality also. You don't seem to want either and the North Korea analogy is more dumb than anything you claim the kippers say.
I also don't see immigration as simply being about a £ profit meaning open doors and seemingly little to no control. Immigration may be broadly providing an economic benefit when taken as a whole, but personally I would be breaking it down a lot more to those who provide and near instant economic benefit and long term benefit. The uncontrolled part of it has large chunks with little to no short term benefit and disastrous long term consequences. Presumably to which people will then start the cycle again by arguing for even more immigration.
For me the economic benefit is a part of it, some of which I will happily sacrifice for other benefits. It's an odd thing, but when immigration was at 40k a year is never got a mention in anyway or ever figured in elections and the world didn't collapse.

Strawman

6,463 posts

206 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
What of the likes of Japan or South Korea, minimal immigration along with a health economy, immigration is not a prerequisite of a health thriving economy.
Japan that's been in stagflation for over ten years now and has the highest national deficit as a percentage of GDP for any country in the world, worse than Zimbabwe? Japan with it's population decline and looming elderly care crisis?
3% of South Korea's population are foreign residents, about the same as the UK or higher?

Axionknight

8,505 posts

134 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Strawman said:
PRTVR said:
What of the likes of Japan or South Korea, minimal immigration along with a health economy, immigration is not a prerequisite of a health thriving economy.
Japan that's been in stagflation for over ten years now and has the highest national deficit as a percentage of GDP for any country in the world, worse than Zimbabwe? Japan with it's population decline and looming elderly care crisis?
3% of South Korea's population are foreign residents, about the same as the UK or higher?
Are you saying that immigration IS a prerequisite of a healthy thriving economy?

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Strawman said:
PRTVR said:
What of the likes of Japan or South Korea, minimal immigration along with a health economy, immigration is not a prerequisite of a health thriving economy.
Japan that's been in stagflation for over ten years now and has the highest national deficit as a percentage of GDP for any country in the world, worse than Zimbabwe? Japan with it's population decline and looming elderly care crisis?
The looming health care crisis cannot be cured by immigration, eventually the immigrants get old and need looking after, all you are doing is putting off the problem and making it worse, I witnessed a a east European couple, pushing around what appeared to be their parents in NHS wheelchairs, we could be making the problem worse not better.

FredClogs

14,041 posts

160 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Axionknight said:
Are you saying that immigration IS a prerequisite of a healthy thriving economy?
I'll say that, yes. Trade of goods and services inherently means trade in skills and human labour, you can't decouple the two. Well you can but you shouldn't for economic and cultural reasons.

MGJohn

10,203 posts

182 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
I see you choose to quote the gross immigration figures not the net which is lower.
Net lower is still far too high!

UNSUSTAINABLE!

MGJohn

10,203 posts

182 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
The looming health care crisis cannot be cured by immigration, eventually the immigrants get old and need looking after, all you are doing is putting off the problem and making it worse, I witnessed a a east European couple, pushing around what appeared to be their parents in NHS wheelchairs, we could be making the problem worse not better.
Please stop talking reason and sense. Poor form on these threads donchaknow.

There's none so blind than those determined not to see.

Strawman

6,463 posts

206 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
Strawman said:
PRTVR said:
What of the likes of Japan or South Korea, minimal immigration along with a health economy, immigration is not a prerequisite of a health thriving economy.
Japan that's been in stagflation for over ten years now and has the highest national deficit as a percentage of GDP for any country in the world, worse than Zimbabwe? Japan with it's population decline and looming elderly care crisis?
The looming health care crisis cannot be cured by immigration
Point out where I said it could? I just stated a couple of reasons why I don't see the medium term (or current) prospects for the Japanese economy are good, I could list many others. Do you see Japan as a shining beacon of economic health? Which is what the discussion was about.