UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[wc98]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

again only imo, but i believe there has been an increase in people working cash in hand,below minimum wage and those involved in the criminal fraternity,all stemming from reductions to budgets of the various agencies tasked with monitoring and enforcement .
again ,imo , the outputs of most academics on the subject are complete and utter ste as they are too far removed from what happens at ground level. i would wager my house that not one single official in the uk could state the actual population to a figure with a plus or minus of 1 million.

people we do need, engineers ,doctors, nurses,scientists (not of the climate variety,real ones ). people we do not need ,illiterate goat herds , con men ,big issue sellers , gang masters running large groups of big issue sellers (unintended consequence ,our home grown junkies go back to screwing peoples homes for a fix) and dare i say it, minimum wage workers. we have plenty of our own leeching off the tax payer that should, could and probably would do the work if the choice was go hungry or work.

out of interest ,what is your view on immigration policy ? complete open door. open door to the eu only ? other ?

[TKF]

don4l said:

toohangry said:

Scuffers said:

don4l said:

Does your £230M include the cost of treating last year's patients?

After a few years, the true cost could easily exceed £2Bn.

exactly the point I was making.

every year it's an additional sum of money, on top of the years before, ie. it's cumulative.

I work it out as being £40bn.

You didn't work anything out.

Daniel Hannan recently pointed out that lefties always try to shut down the debate when they feel that they are losing.

Your post really fits well with his thesis. It is just pointless noise that doesn't add anything to the discussion.

You are not demonstrating your intelligence, and you know it. So, why are you pretending to be thick?

Is TKF your hero?

You didn't work anything out either. Well, you did, but the numbers being discussed are all meaningless. Your estimate of £2Bn has no more solid grounding than the £40Bn figure or my £17Tr. It all comes from Scuffers' entirely baseless "estimate" of 35% so throwing your £2Bn hat into the ring is pointless.

Either you can see this and you're being argumentative or you can't and you're being thick? I think I know which it is but I'd appreciate clarification.

[NicD]

Since restrictions ended on January 1 last year. Nothing against foreigners but I want to see locals in jobs because they are my countrymen and I don't want us to be paying benefits.

'More than 150,000 Romanians now have access to British jobs – a surge of 223 cent since last year, when they were given the same rights to work here as British citizens.

Some 17,000 Bulgarians registered for National Insurance (NI) numbers in 2014, but that figure has now risen to a staggering 40,576 – an increase of 128 per cent.
Last month it was revealed that EU migrants were securing jobs in Britain at 10 times the rate of British-born workers.

Ukip MEP Jane Collins slammed the trend, saying: "This level of mainly unskilled migration from the EU is totally unsustainable in both the short and long term."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/582092/Romania-Bu...

[968]

NicD said:

Since restrictions ended on January 1 last year. Nothing against foreigners but I want to see locals in jobs because they are my countrymen and I don't want us to be paying benefits.

'More than 150,000 Romanians now have access to British jobs – a surge of 223 cent since last year, when they were given the same rights to work here as British citizens.

Some 17,000 Bulgarians registered for National Insurance (NI) numbers in 2014, but that figure has now risen to a staggering 40,576 – an increase of 128 per cent.
Last month it was revealed that EU migrants were securing jobs in Britain at 10 times the rate of British-born workers.

Ukip MEP Jane Collins slammed the trend, saying: "This level of mainly unskilled migration from the EU is totally unsustainable in both the short and long term."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/582092/Romania-Bu...

Nice hyperbole taken from a highly dubious source. More than 150000 Romanians have ACCESS to British jobs, but how many have actually taken them? 17000 Bulgarins are paying NI? So they're paying tax. Which is good, is it not? Should they not be paying NI? Of course it's rhetorical as I know you just don't want them here. Great example of a total non-story designed and worded to boil urine.


Is this the same Jane Collins who was suspected of inappropriately claiming expenses? Pot and kettle perhaps.

Edited by 968 on Thursday 4th June 06:51

[Scuffers]

968 said:

Nice hyperbole taken from a highly dubious source. More than 150000 Romanians have ACCESS to British jobs, but how many have actually taken them? 17000 Bulgarins are paying NI? So they're paying tax. Which is good, is it not? Should they not be paying NI? Of course it's rhetorical as I know you just don't want them here. Great example of a total non-story designed and worded to boil urine.


Is this the same Jane Collins who was suspected of inappropriately claiming expenses? Pot and kettle perhaps.

Edited by 968 on Thursday 4th June 06:51

You're an idiot again.

That's 40,576 with NI numbers, And you need an NI number to claim benefits.

and if the 150,000 are not working, how are they supporting themselves?

Edited by Scuffers on Thursday 4th June 08:09

[Scuffers]

TKF said:

You didn't work anything out either. Well, you did, but the numbers being discussed are all meaningless. Your estimate of £2Bn has no more solid grounding than the £40Bn figure or my £17Tr. It all comes from Scuffers' entirely baseless "estimate" of 35% so throwing your £2Bn hat into the ring is pointless.

Either you can see this and you're being argumentative or you can't and you're being thick? I think I know which it is but I'd appreciate clarification.

think?

Pot, this is Mr kettle calling!

if you don't like my 35% come up with your own reasoned number then.

you keep howling on about it, yet have nothing to offer as an alternative, or are you going to try and suggest it's 0%

[Mrr T]

Scuffers said:

TKF said:

You didn't work anything out either. Well, you did, but the numbers being discussed are all meaningless. Your estimate of £2Bn has no more solid grounding than the £40Bn figure or my £17Tr. It all comes from Scuffers' entirely baseless "estimate" of 35% so throwing your £2Bn hat into the ring is pointless.

Either you can see this and you're being argumentative or you can't and you're being thick? I think I know which it is but I'd appreciate clarification.

think?

Pot, this is Mr kettle calling!

if you don't like my 35% come up with your own reasoned number then.

you keep howling on about it, yet have nothing to offer as an alternative, or are you going to try and suggest it's 0%

Scuffers why do you keep posting.

I have already proved using your highest guess that 40% of black African HIV sufferers in the UK are health tourists (I do think the figure is far to high). Based on the total number of those people living in the UK in 2014, therefore the only ones likely to get NHS treatment. The cost would only be about £230M per year. Not in excess of £1.48BN per annum as you cliam.

[rs1952]

Mrr T said:

Scuffers why do you keep posting.

His medication has probably worn off...

[Scuffers]

Mrr T said:

Scuffers why do you keep posting.

I have already proved using your highest guess that 40% of black African HIV sufferers in the UK are health tourists (I do think the figure is far to high). Based on the total number of those people living in the UK in 2014, therefore the only ones likely to get NHS treatment. The cost would only be about £230M per year. Not in excess of £1.48BN per annum as you cliam.

and once again, you have missed the point massively.

if you are right and the number is £230M for a year, now work then though for next year, then keep doing this form the last 10-15 years.

Now, do you not see that the cumulative costs are well over £1Bn? the patients don't all only cost for 1 year (assuming they have not died), just because somebody has been here a year does not suddenly make them NOT an immigrant.

as an aside, I never said it costs the £1.4Bn, that's the figure bandied about for the costs of all health tourism, my point was that's complete bull when the cost of paying for HIV drugs alone already is close to that (once you add up the cumulative effects of the last 10 years).

[Mrr T]

NicD said:

Since restrictions ended on January 1 last year. Nothing against foreigners but I want to see locals in jobs because they are my countrymen and I don't want us to be paying benefits.

'More than 150,000 Romanians now have access to British jobs – a surge of 223 cent since last year, when they were given the same rights to work here as British citizens.

Some 17,000 Bulgarians registered for National Insurance (NI) numbers in 2014, but that figure has now risen to a staggering 40,576 – an increase of 128 per cent.
Last month it was revealed that EU migrants were securing jobs in Britain at 10 times the rate of British-born workers.

Ukip MEP Jane Collins slammed the trend, saying: "This level of mainly unskilled migration from the EU is totally unsustainable in both the short and long term."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/582092/Romania-Bu...

I try and avoid calling people racist on this forum but reading Jane Collins comments its hard to avoid.

The facts are Romanian has one of the most competitive education systems in the EU. Far more so than in the UK. Further degrees are expensive and require funding. So students do not do degrees in posh and becks but in hard subjects.

Since Jane Collins has only 4 GCSE's and an A level in Art, before working as a equine physiotherapists.

I think a better quote is that Mrr T says, "its clear that most Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants are far better educated than Jane Collins. This is not sustainable UKIP should recruit MEP's with better educational standards.

[Mrr T]

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

Scuffers why do you keep posting.

I have already proved using your highest guess that 40% of black African HIV sufferers in the UK are health tourists (I do think the figure is far to high). Based on the total number of those people living in the UK in 2014, therefore the only ones likely to get NHS treatment. The cost would only be about £230M per year. Not in excess of £1.48BN per annum as you cliam.

and once again, you have missed the point massively.

if you are right and the number is £230M for a year, now work then though for next year, then keep doing this form the last 10-15 years.

Now, do you not see that the cumulative costs are well over £1Bn? the patients don't all only cost for 1 year (assuming they have not died), just because somebody has been here a year does not suddenly make them NOT an immigrant.

as an aside, I never said it costs the £1.4Bn, that's the figure bandied about for the costs of all health tourism, my point was that's complete bull when the cost of paying for HIV drugs alone already is close to that (once you add up the cumulative effects of the last 10 years).

Really ?

On page 245 you clearly referred to greater than £1.48bn per annum.

Scuffers said:

No I don't and I think your constant inability to see the wood from the tree's is a symptom of your incessant strawman argument style.

the simple facts are that there are no hard numbers oh health tourism, the raw data collection is simply not there.

That said, there are clearly some corners of this that are relatively easy to identify, ie. HIV treatment.

the reason it's easy to see is the overall numbers of patients are relatively low (in NHS terms), and the data collection is somewhat more targeted (it's not like you can mix it in with other A&E traffic etc)

Now, depending on who's numbers you use, there are between 6-7,000 new cases presented to the NHS every year (HIV + Aids).

this is where it get's harder, as the stats don't tell you how many are immigrants, only what their country of birth was - not the same thing.

the estimate is some 35-40% (these are very much the low end of the scale figures) of new presentations are immigrants, so that gives you a range from 2,100-2,800 PA.

Taking the lower number here, based on the average cost of HIV antiretrovirals being some £23,000 PA (and remember this is an average of all patients, and does not include any time costs to the NHS), that gives you some £48-64M PA additional costs every year cumulatively.

add that up year on year, and you're talking huge numbers, then add in the costs of staffing costs associated with these patients and your easily into well over £1Bn just with the last 10 years worth (based on the lowest figures of current presentations).

now, you compare this with the so called 'facts' of the total health tourism bill being only ~£1.4Bn PA, then it's pretty damn obvious to anybody with half a brain, that the £1.4Bn is laughly wrong when the cumulative effect of the last 10 years just in HIV patients can pretty much account for that much.

[blindswelledrat]

PRTVR said:

blindswelledrat said:

PRTVR said:

Do you know how much care costs for the elderly, £700 pounds a week, how much are the immigrants earning, how much benefits are they receiving, how much tax will have to be paid to cover their own costs, I really do not think it has been thought through, so long as we can get a cheep builder everything's fine, but somebody has to pay in the end taxes will have to rise or services will suffer,
it would be intresting to see the figures for tax returns from immigrants against the numbers that were here.

When you say things like this you completely ignore the value that the person's work affords the economy over jobs that wouldn't get done anyway.
Take a low level worker like a tradesman. According to you, because he only pays £7k pa in tax and consumes £8k of services, then he is a drain on our economy. You completely ignore the fact that without foreigners our construction industry would be about 1/10th of its size and our economy would be infinitely worse off, if not crippled. The salaries of many British nationals are utterly reliant on the profits created by that immigrant's work, as are the profits of all our large companies. This applies to every industry and is multiplied many-fold when you get to senior high-earning immigrants. Your simplistic view of basic economics is even worse than your ability to spell the word 'cheap'.

I agree, but what if the jobs were going to be done by a British national but the rate for the job goes down due to oversupply along with a willingness to work for a lesser amount, I can see the advantage for the employer in reduced wages but there is the negative side in lower pay for employees, there is no simple answer to this, if we get a high earning immigrant worker, their original country loses their contribution, making them poorer, the whole immigration is good or bad is to simplistic, but I do believe controlled immigration is the way forward.

I can see your logic, and if it were correct I would probably agree with you.
It doesn't work like that though. At all.
If all the immigrants were not in our economy, there would not suddenly be piles more money in the economy to fill their jobs with much higher paid currently unemployed people. Quite the opposite. There would be far far less money and a far smaller economy. WHat would actually happen was that layers and layers of more senior jobs would become obsolete and half the well-paid national workforce would have to do lesser jobs. The current unemployed would still remain unemployed (and unemployable if we're honest about this) and the rest of us would be in an unpleasant situation.

THe main flaw to your theory is that you (and most other UKIP people) seem to believe that the only people who benefit from lowish paid workers are immediate employers. Its not true at all. We live in a capitalist and highly competitive economy so the cost of literally everything is related to these earnings. We all benefit and have done forever. The point being that our economy is completely built on immigration and is relatively healthy because of it and not, as you all believe, just taking advantage of a bit of cheap labour to boost profits of individuals.

[Mr_B]

blindswelledrat said:

I can see your logic, and if it were correct I would probably agree with you.
It doesn't work like that though. At all.
If all the immigrants were not in our economy, there would not suddenly be piles more money in the economy to fill their jobs with much higher paid currently unemployed people. Quite the opposite. There would be far far less money and a far smaller economy. WHat would actually happen was that layers and layers of more senior jobs would become obsolete and half the well-paid national workforce would have to do lesser jobs. The current unemployed would still remain unemployed (and unemployable if we're honest about this) and the rest of us would be in an unpleasant situation.

THe main flaw to your theory is that you (and most other UKIP people) seem to believe that the only people who benefit from lowish paid workers are immediate employers. Its not true at all. We live in a capitalist and highly competitive economy so the cost of literally everything is related to these earnings. We all benefit and have done forever. The point being that our economy is completely built on immigration and is relatively healthy because of it and not, as you all believe, just taking advantage of a bit of cheap labour to boost profits of individuals.

Could you just demonstrate how the economy is "completely built on immigration" ?

[blindswelledrat]

Are you serious?
Well to start with just consider the fact that our population itself is comprised of hundreds of years of immigration.
You talk as though its a new thing and it's really not.
Even just talking about first generation immigrants, our current workforce contains 15% of direct immigrants.
THis idea that people like you have that we just send them back and easily replace that with our current unemployed is not even remotely realistic but if you genuinely believe that you could just motivate our current 5 million unemployed to fill gap left by those immigrants and all will be rosy, then you and I can't really have a meaningful discussion because our perception of how our current economy works is so incredibly divided that there is no common ground.

[Funkycoldribena]

I see the same old posters are trotting out the "xenophobic" and "racist" words.Give it a rest,its really boring.

[FiF]

House of Lords Select Committee on Economics. Session 2007/2008

Economic Impact of Immigration
Para 122 and 123.

122. We recognise that many public and private enterprises currently rely upon immigrants—from the NHS to City institutions, from the construction industry to residential care. We do not doubt the great value of this workforce from overseas to UK businesses and public services. Nevertheless, the argument that sustained net immigration is needed to fill vacancies, and that immigrants do the jobs that locals cannot or will not do, is fundamentally flawed. It ignores the potential alternatives to immigration for responding to labour shortages, including the price adjustments of a competitive labour market and the associated increase in local labour supply that can be expected to occur in the absence of immigration. Each of the alternative ways of responding to labour shortages involves its own economic costs and benefits. Rather than deducing a need for immigrant labour from the existence of vacancies in the economy, the discussion about how to respond to labour shortages should be based on analysis of the feasibility and net benefits to the resident population from the various alternatives including immigration.

123. Immigration encouraged as a “quick fix” in response to perceived labour and skills shortages reduces employers’ incentives to consider and invest in alternatives. It will also reduce domestic workers’ incentives to acquire the training and skills necessary to do certain jobs. Consequently, immigration designed to address short term shortages may have the unintended consequence of creating the conditions that encourage shortages of local workers in the longer term.

[blindswelledrat]

Funkycoldribena said:

I see the same old posters are trotting out the "xenophobic" and "racist" words.Give it a rest,its really boring.

Xenophobia and racism are even more boring.
I feel a potential deal to be made out of this little exchange..

[MGJohn]

blindswelledrat said:

Funkycoldribena said:

I see the same old posters are trotting out the "xenophobic" and "racist" words.Give it a rest,its really boring.

Xenophobia and racism are even more boring.

I feel a potential deal to be made out of this little exchange..

Such accusations are often made by those with a distorted axe to grind. They can also quote news reports, research, reported crime figures being down ( unlike unreported crime which is increasing hugely ) , LSE and various other official studies show immigration is net beneficial and consume such as gospel. That whilst at the same time conveniently ignoring the best evidence available, that of their own ears and eyes.

It is a huge and increasing economic problem which under current circumstances, will not improve.

Worth repeating :~

UNSUSTAINABLE.

[Disastrous]

MGJohn said:

LSE and various other official studies show immigration is net beneficial and consume such as gospel. That whilst at the same time conveniently ignoring the best evidence available, that of their own ears and eyes.

Genuinely ludicrous.

[MGJohn]

Disastrous said:

MGJohn said:

LSE and various other official studies show immigration is net beneficial and consume such as gospel. That whilst at the same time conveniently ignoring the best evidence available, that of their own ears and eyes.

Genuinely ludicrous.

Disastrous nit-picker conveniently ignoring the unsustainable. Beyond ludicrous. Seriously unfunny.

Yes, genuine. You got that bit right.