UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
MGJohn said:
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.
Yes, genuine. You got that bit right.
It's not even debatable.
MGJohn said:
... and still the usual suspect naysayers fail to even mention the word unsustainable. Still running blindly true to form.
You're mentioning the word enough for everybody, sadly, regardless of it's pertinence to the subject being discussed.You're doing the forum equivalent of running into a room and just shouting a word over the top of everyone else. I'm going to give it a go:
Here's a word everyone seems to be ignoring:
TONSILLITIS!!!
What do you say about that Scuffers and MGJohn and the usual suspects and bovine excrement eaters running blindly true to form you couldn't make it up?
None so blind...
I'll say it again: Tonsillitis.
Edited by Disastrous on Thursday 4th June 12:09
MGJohn said:
... and still the usual suspect naysayers fail to even mention the word unsustainable. Still running blindly true to form.
But EU born migrants aren't running like lemmings to the UK with no thought as to what they will do here, they are either coming to work and earn money, or paying tens of thousands annually to get higher degrees. I can see why UKIP might disparage university education since they mostly don't have degrees but to the rest of the world the UK has some of the highest rated learning institutions.MGJohn said:
... and still the usual suspect naysayers fail to even mention the word unsustainable. Still running blindly true to form.
It's sustainable, demonstrably so with every available metric. Just because you repeatedly sign off with a capitalised word doesn't make it any more valid.GIRAFFES
FiF said:
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.
That's definitely a valid point, but adopting policies to steer us down that route is a very long term, and hugely involved process that should be running alongside current policies if it is deemed the way forwardEconomic 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.
The point being you cannot reverse decades of increasing, easy access benefits and economy-wide reliance on immigration with a simple "send-em-back" policy.
blindswelledrat said:
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.
Nobody is talking about stopping immigration, just controlling it, where has anybody said they would be sent back? No society can cope with uncontrolled immigration, if and when things start to get worse in other EU countries people will up sticks and move,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.
just on the news last night in an interview in Greece people were talking about moving to the UK,
how do we plan for this? Houses education health service, when you have no idea how many are coming.
If you remember the guy who produced the flawed report on benefits of immigration also produced a report on how many Romanians were going to come here, yet again he was totally and massively wrong.
Do you think also it has an effect on training of British people to do jobs? If you can get say an engineer, fully trained why train your own, how do we stop this happening ? If you think immigrants are better qualified over British people is not the answer to improve our educational system.
MGJohn said:
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.
When everyone else in the world thinks that you have a mental illness, but you yourself think that you are rational - other than in some really poor films, in 99.999999% of the cases everyone else is right.It is a huge and increasing economic problem which under current circumstances, will not improve.
Worth repeating :~
UNSUSTAINABLE.
Admittedly that is just a statistic which you discount as irrelevant, as you cant see or hear it, so if you need something tangible just dig out some of your old homework from school and look how many red crosses were scrawled all over it by the teacher.
I don't normally do these as I hate them, but can't help hearing Nat King Cole singing 'Unsustainable" now. Moreso because he's ironically black.
via Imgflip Meme Maker
via Imgflip Meme Makerblindswelledrat said:
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.
You really are incapable of representing anything you don't agree with with any honesty , are you ? What the hell are you talking about with ' people like me sending people back ' type sWell 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.
te ? The debate is quite obviously about the current levels of immigration and if that is long term sensible and if it should be controlled in numbers and quality. I'm quite aware of the fact the immigration contributes and is helpful, as well as I am that not all of it is wonderful and not all immigrants are beneficial in the short term, let alone the long term.
You would look less comical on the subject if you didn't just talk blindly that immigration all fabulous and can continue as is.
MGJohn said:
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.
Yes, genuine. You got that bit right.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I do wonder why this point is continuously ignored?Cameron got a right kicking over his "net migration down to tens of thousands" pledge. However if you remove the uncontrolled bit (i.e. EU migrants) he would have still missed the target due to the non-EU migrants. Like you say these people passed the immigration controls because we as a nation had a need for them.
BAZOOKA
blindswelledrat said:
MGJohn said:
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.
When everyone else in the world thinks that you have a mental illness, but you yourself think that you are rational - other than in some really poor films, in 99.999999% of the cases everyone else is right.It is a huge and increasing economic problem which under current circumstances, will not improve.
Worth repeating :~
UNSUSTAINABLE.
Admittedly that is just a statistic which you discount as irrelevant, as you cant see or hear it, so if you need something tangible just dig out some of your old homework from school and look how many red crosses were scrawled all over it by the teacher.
blindswelledrat said:
FiF said:
House of Lords Select Committee on Economics. Session 2007/2008
Economic Impact of Immigration elsea 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.
That's definitely a valid point, but adopting policies to steer us down that route is a very long term, and hugely involved process that should be running alongside current policies if it is deemed the way forwardEconomic Impact of Immigration elsea 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.
The point being you cannot reverse decades of increasing, easy access benefits and economy-wide reliance on immigration with a simple "send-em-back" policy.
I thought that what was being suggested was a "we are where we are" stance and then trying to shift policy so that we have more control on who settles here, combined with changes to the welfare state to reduce the pull from overseas of low skilled workers and to get the people already here wherever they are from off benefits by various means. That will necessarily be a long term task over more than one Parliament one suggests.
Perhaps there is somebody somewhere saying send em all back. That's setting aside the work of the Borders and Immigration shower, whatever they're called this week, in dealing with genuine illegals with no valid claim for asylum, which suppose that is a send em back policy on a very closely defined subset.
Now if I've missed it please point it out because I haven't seen any mass call for send em back. Of course there have been studies which show a vast majority of the population think that immigration is too high, 76% iirc. Also a majority of allethnic groups. Tbh This phone is useless when it comes to posting links mid post, let me know if you want links to those studies and will try and sort something out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff