The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[anonymous-user]

When your services are at 99.8% capacity, 0.3% does not become a rounding error, it becomes a crisis.

When your services are at 99.8% capacity, 10 years of 0.3% does not become a rounding error, it becomes beyond a crisis to very dangerous.

When you have governments (all of them) that underestimate the amount of population growth by 5 million over a 10 year period, so don't plan accordingly, you get a crisis.

[walm]

jsf said:

When your services are at 99.8% capacity, 0.3% does not become a rounding error, it becomes a crisis.

When your services are at 99.8% capacity, 10 years of 0.3% does not become a rounding error, it becomes beyond a crisis to very dangerous.

When you have governments (all of them) that underestimate the amount of population growth by 5 million over a 10 year period, so don't plan accordingly, you get a crisis.

I have posted endless figures before.
We aren't at or close to 99.8% capacity.

Check available school places.

Here's the NHS bed capacity analysis: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/u...
It's around 90% give or take.

So feel free to continue to make up numbers to support your viewpoint... but it just makes you look ignorant.

[Murph7355]

Mrr T said:

Ok how about.

These are facts that support my arguement.

They don't do it very well though - are you suffering from the cold that everyone's been having? Or have you swapped user accounts with //ajd? Your posts lately haven't been as sound (if somewhat blinkered/misguided ) as they were not long ago...

Averages are fine, but in terms of immigration why are we concerning ourselves with averages? The indigenous population is perfectly capable of breeding those that need taking care of (apparently). So we have enough people born here lowering averages. We do not need to import more.

We need to control immigration to the point where those below the average marker(s) are told they must not pass go, must not collect £200 and can go back from whence they came (other than in exceptional circumstances).

This is one area where we do not have sufficiently strong data to make any case whatsoever, and averages are of no help. One thing I would like us to do with our new found sovereign control is to start collating and using our data more effectively so that in future these sorts of argument are less easy to have - get some true "facts" out there to kill most of the argument before it gets out of hand (you'll never appease the true knuckle dragger...but then I do not believe many of those actually exist).

walm said:

The one fact that makes all the hogwash about how pregnant Poles are destroying the NHS obviously BS is that net migration is 0.3% per annum.

It's a rounding error.

The problems people highlight - stretched A&E, maternity, busy roads, school place competition etc... would all be almost EXACTLY as dire as they are now WITHOUT those pesky migrants.

The problem is a decade of austerity, budget cuts and a lack of growth.

There might very well be downsides to uncontrolled migration from the EU, but the symptoms cited are often absolutely nothing to do with them.

You're washing numbers over 65m though. Again, I don't think that's necessarily helpful.

If those 0.3% per annum are in concentrated pockets around the country (which I am pretty sure will be the case), then for the indigenous people in those areas their perception of the drag on services might actually be very true. Whether you or I would ever see it or not (I see very, very little immigration out where I live for example. Though that I do see is unlikely to be elevating averages sadly).

And it wouldn't take too many pockets for word to get around that it's a problem and perceptions elsewhere to become tainted (rightly or wrongly).

The other thing is that right now immigration for most is likely a smokescreen to the effectiveness of the people we have in power (locally/nationally) and also the feckless. Remove the smokescreen and start shining a very direct light on the real root causes. But you'll never do it whilst vision is obscured.

[paulrockliffe]

walm said:

I have posted endless figures before.
We aren't at or close to 99.8% capacity.

Check available school places.

Here's the NHS bed capacity analysis: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/u...
It's around 90% give or take.

So feel free to continue to make up numbers to support your viewpoint... but it just makes you look ignorant.

National averages are irrelevant to local situations.

[Mrr T]

loafer123 said:

Mrr T said:

The fact is most EU immigrants are single when they arrive. The facts are they are younger than the UK average age. Guess what they then meet other young people and get married and have children. If you look at parents’ country of birth. Polish men and ladies are now the second most common country of birth. Considering UK birth rate is well below replacement level this is great news.

That does go completely against your income, employment and net cost to the state assertions.

Best stick to the facts, not your interpretation of the data.

It does not because if you look at a person’s costs and inputs to the state it has to be done over a life time. Therefore the costs of childbirth, schooling etc, are costs of the child not the parent. This is why EU immigration is so cost effect, the costs of childhood and education has not been borne by the UK.

[B'stard Child]

Mrr T said:

B'stard Child said:

Points that support my argument - I'd agree with that - if really good data was avaliable we'd all have the facts - problem is that due to the "uncontrolled nature of the migration from within the EU good "Facts" are rather difficult to obtain

From your perspective you've seen no downside to uncontrolled migration so you believe it to be all good

Other perspectives are avaliable......

“all good” I would never say that. I would say mainly good.

I'd accept that wording too - by accept I mean I don't agree but "all good" may have been pushing it - pre 23rd June probably would have been your position

Mrr T said:

I am also happy to accept you have a perfect right to disagree.

OK

Mrr T said:

What annoys me is posters who start a discussion on EU immigrants with the words “uneducated” and “minimum wage”.

I wasn't aware I had?

[loafer123]

Mrr T said:

loafer123 said:

Mrr T said:

The fact is most EU immigrants are single when they arrive. The facts are they are younger than the UK average age. Guess what they then meet other young people and get married and have children. If you look at parents’ country of birth. Polish men and ladies are now the second most common country of birth. Considering UK birth rate is well below replacement level this is great news.

That does go completely against your income, employment and net cost to the state assertions.

Best stick to the facts, not your interpretation of the data.

It does not because if you look at a person’s costs and inputs to the state it has to be done over a life time. Therefore the costs of childbirth, schooling etc, are costs of the child not the parent. This is why EU immigration is so cost effect, the costs of childhood and education has not been borne by the UK.

How about the single income effect and ensuing tax credits, housing benefits etc?

[Mrr T]

B'stard Child said:

Mrr T said:

I am also happy to accept you have a perfect right to disagree.

OK

Mrr T said:

What annoys me is posters who start a discussion on EU immigrants with the words “uneducated” and “minimum wage”.

I wasn't aware I had?

You had not said that and I was not suggesting you would.



If you check further up the tread you will see I was initially reesponding to a poster who had chosen to use one of the words.

[walm]

Murph7355 said:

You're washing numbers over 65m though. Again, I don't think that's necessarily helpful.

It's more helpful than saying "A CITY THE SIZE OF COVENTRY EVERY YEAR!!!!!", isn't it?
I mean, I have no idea, but the idea of building an entirely new town every year sounds preposterously difficult to me.
But the idea of comfortably absorbing an extra 0.3% seems like a drop in the ocean, when we have c.2% GDP growth etc...

Murph7355 said:

If those 0.3% per annum are in concentrated pockets around the country (which I am pretty sure will be the case), then for the indigenous people in those areas their perception of the drag on services might actually be very true.

And it wouldn't take too many pockets for word to get around that it's a problem and perceptions elsewhere to become tainted (rightly or wrongly).

I think that is an excellent point.

Sadly it just means that a bunch of people made an historic decision based on mis-perceptions, doesn't it?

[walm]

paulrockliffe said:

walm said:

I have posted endless figures before.
We aren't at or close to 99.8% capacity.

Check available school places.

Here's the NHS bed capacity analysis: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/u...
It's around 90% give or take.

So feel free to continue to make up numbers to support your viewpoint... but it just makes you look ignorant.

National averages are irrelevant to local situations.

Sure.
But we just had a national vote.
And I haven't seen anyone on here saying, "I voted Brexit because although the numbers are tiny at a national level, my local issue was the reason".
I have just seen comments such as,
"are we increasing services to cope with immigrants?" (Yes, we are.)
"immigrants pay little tax" (sure, there aren't very many of them)
"UK can't afford the current level of immigration" (we can't afford 0.3% population growth??)

These are national criticisms not local ones.

[Digga]

Plus, since in 2004 the Home Office instructed police not to record instances of illegal immigration, and give how porous borders actually are, I have no idea how anyone can claim to have definitive figures. You cannot know illegals here illegally or 'legal' immigrants (i.e. EU) who are here 'under the radar'. No one knows.

[Murph7355]

walm said:

...
It's more helpful than saying "A CITY THE SIZE OF COVENTRY EVERY YEAR!!!!!", isn't it?
I mean, I have no idea, but the idea of building an entirely new town every year sounds preposterously difficult to me.
But the idea of comfortably absorbing an extra 0.3% seems like a drop in the ocean, when we have c.2% GDP growth etc...

The truth as with most things will be somewhere in the middle. There is likely to be a very real need for services and infrastructure that cannot be switched on overnight in those locales that need it.

Meanwhile others will be shrugging wondering what the problem is.

The extremes of averages/max/mins remain unhelpful in these circumstances either way.

walm said:

I think that is an excellent point.

Sadly it just means that a bunch of people made an historic decision based on mis-perceptions, doesn't it?

Not at all. The perceptions of those hit by the pockets of immigration are potentially very real. The impact of those perceptions will quite realistically spread way beyond the immediate area. It's natural (e.g. my folks live 200 miles away from me - were they suffering at the hands of a "policy", it might influence the way I feel about it too).

I do not believe the majority of those voting Leave wanted to stop immigration totally. Just to control it so that we can avail ourselves of the "below averages" and allow immigration to happen such that services and infrastructure can cope ("control" ).

It's quite easy to believe that those wanting to stop immigration totally/down to a low number are actually impacted by the sort of pockets, directly or indirectly, that I suspect you and I are not.

It's wholly wrong to dismiss those sort of opinions out of hand. If nothing was learnt from last year, it is that.

[Murph7355]

A thought just occurred to me....the ratio is likely to be equally garbage to the use of other ratios (averages, dividing by the total population etc), but :

- the referendum was won by 1,269,501 votes
- it would have taken "just" 634,751 votes to tip it the other way (albeit with such a small winning margin that the whining would have been even worse than it is now, if such a thing can be believed)
- immigration is what...320k per annum right now? All of a sudden your 0.3% is suddenly 50% if it is applied to the "concerned" part of those with a vote....OK, only 25% with half of our immigration being from outside the EU. But who's to say people with family/ancestry outside the EU wouldn't also have been voting to curb EU immigration/put it on a level playing with that from outside?

Yes I know, as a stat it's full of holes. But that's the point - they are all meaningless unless the detail is looked at properly. Which I do not believe we have the data/analytics for.

[sidicks]

walm said:

The one fact that makes all the hogwash about how pregnant Poles are destroying the NHS obviously BS is that net migration is 0.3% per annum.

It's a rounding error.

Surely the net 0.3% number is meaningless, what is important is the gross 'ins' and 'outs' and what these people represent in terms of GDP and costs?

walm said:

The problems people highlight - stretched A&E, maternity, busy roads, school place competition etc... would all be almost EXACTLY as dire as they are now WITHOUT those pesky migrants.

The problem is a decade of austerity, budget cuts and a lack of growth.

Budgets increased each and every year, you mean?
In nominal terms, NHS spending almost tripled between 1997 and 2009...
Between 2009/10 and 2020/21 actual or prjected spending will increase in real terms in every year apart from 2010/2011.

When the NHS was launched in 1948, it had a budget of £437 million (roughly £15 billion at today's value). For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was around £116.4 billion.

walm said:

There might very well be downsides to uncontrolled migration from the EU, but the symptoms cited are often absolutely nothing to do with them.

Debateable, certain there is a tipping point.

[walm]

Murph7355 said:

I do not believe the majority of those voting Leave wanted to stop immigration totally. Just to control it so that we can avail ourselves of the "below averages" and allow immigration to happen such that services and infrastructure can cope ("control" ).

My point is that even a complete stop of immigration won't get close to helping infrastructure cope if you think it isn't coping now.
It just doesn't make sense that "crippled NHS, schools crisis, housing crisis" would all be solved by preventing an extra 0.3% of people from entering the country each year, does it?

Issues such as the aging population, limited productivity growth and inequality are just SO MUCH BIGGER.
Playing "blame the immigrant" works well until you actually have to deliver once you have got rid of them!!

[sidicks]

walm said:

My point is that even a complete stop of immigration won't get close to helping infrastructure cope if you think it isn't coping now.
It just doesn't make sense that "crippled NHS, schools crisis, housing crisis" would all be solved by preventing an extra 0.3% of people from entering the country each year, does it?

Issues such as the aging population, limited productivity growth and inequality are just SO MUCH BIGGER.
Playing "blame the immigrant" works well until you actually have to deliver once you have got rid of them!!

Conversely if you already have significant issues to address, why would you deliberately make it worse?

[powerstroke]

walm said:

My point is that even a complete stop of immigration won't get close to helping infrastructure cope if you think it isn't coping now.
It just doesn't make sense that "crippled NHS, schools crisis, housing crisis" would all be solved by preventing an extra 0.3% of people from entering the country each year, does it?

Issues such as the aging population, limited productivity growth and inequality are just SO MUCH BIGGER.
Playing "blame the immigrant" works well until you actually have to deliver once you have got rid of them!!

So whats your solution ????

[Murph7355]

walm said:

...
Issues such as the aging population, limited productivity growth and inequality are just SO MUCH BIGGER.
Playing "blame the immigrant" works well until you actually have to deliver once you have got rid of them!!

Totally agree. (Not so sure about "inequality"...depends what you mean).

Wouldn't it be nice to force our home grown politicians into having to deliver something though, without any unnecessary fripperies.

walm said:

My point is that even a complete stop of immigration won't get close to helping infrastructure cope if you think it isn't coping now.
It just doesn't make sense that "crippled NHS, schools crisis, housing crisis" would all be solved by preventing an extra 0.3% of people from entering the country each year, does it?

As sidicks notes, it at least wouldn't make it any worse.

But I also refer you back to my other point. If a relatively poor area already has a stretched set of local services, and is subject to disproportionate (to the notional 0.3%) immigration, then it's not inconceivable that a halt to further expansion in that area wherever possible (e.g. hard to stop people breeding, is easier to stop people migrating there. Ish) is surely beneficial wrt services (until such a point as they are able to catch up).


Our social challenges are way bigger than just immigration (or Brexit or any other truly big ticket item). We have to start chipping away at the excuses IMO. As a society it feels like we've become complacent. Sat on our "world leaders" view for way, way too long. We need to collectively get a grip.

[walm]

sidicks said:

Conversely if you already have significant issues to address, why would you deliberately make it worse?

You mean why would I vote to remove ourselves from our most important trading partnership and create a minimum of two years of uncertainty, putting the entire economic recovery in jeopardy just to be rid of a tiny number of extra people each year (who probably pay their way or are at least close to doing so)?

Good question!

[Murph7355]

walm said:

You mean why would I vote to remove ourselves from our most important trading partnership and create a minimum of two years of uncertainty, putting the entire economic recovery in jeopardy just to be rid of a tiny number of extra people each year (who probably pay their way or are at least close to doing so)?

Good question!

That isn't what regaining sovereignty is about though walm...it's one small manifestation of it.

The economic stuff is just bunkum that people will be making money on at present. It'll wash away soon enough.