Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Vanden Saab said:
Nickgnome said:
Crackie said:
Breadvan72 said:
the most recent discussion about low skilled migration impacts appeared on. Probably all of them.
Snip
https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/1194652089...
At least you're prepared admit you're too bone idle to search. Top marks for the sanctimony though . Snip
https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/1194652089...
The irony of using the C4 link is that you've managed to shine another spotlight on the usual hard of thinking confirmation bias endemic within C4 News. Using contributors that only support C4's own juvenile 'because Tories' view of the world, might keep a certain demographic happy but every sparky, plumber, chippy, gardener and farm worker that I've met during the last decade knows Esther Duflo's comments do not reflect the UK in 2019.
Nobel Prize winners may well be s
t hot regarding their knowledge of the consequences of Castro era Cuban migration to Miami or Kennedy era immigrants in California however this will butter few parsnips with post Maastricht low paid workers in the UK.Having reviewed the results of twelve different studies conducted between 2003 and 2018, Oxford University's Migration Observatory concluded " In practice, this means that between 1993 and 2017, the total effect of EU migration on the wages of UK-born workers was estimated to be a 4.9% reduction in wages for those at the 10th earnings percentile."
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/br...
Research shows a small impact of overall immigration on the employment and unemployment rates of UK-born workers
. Second, that where an impact is found it tends to be concentrated among certain groups – i.e. a negative effect for those with lower education and a positive effect for those with higher levels of education.
Immigration has small impact on average wages but more significant impacts along the wage distribution: low-waged workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain
Empirical research on the labour market effects of immigration in the UK suggests that immigration has relatively small effects on average wages, with negative effects on low-paid workers and positive effects on high-paid workers.
Snip...
Breadvan72 said:
There has never been uncontrolled immigration. Service deficits are caused by underfunding and by poor planning. You have been taught by liars and racists to blame immigrants. You have fallen for the con job.
I’m close to people who run the machine. I’ve made my mind up on evidence. Breadvan72 said:
There has never been uncontrolled immigration. Service deficits are caused by underfunding and by poor planning. You have been taught by liars and racists to blame immigrants. You have fallen for the con job.
Regardless of who sold what to whom BV, there are 2m more people living in the UK in 2019 than there were in 2009 as a result of migration. It is almost certainly poor planning as I recall the predicted number for migration from the then government for an accession country beginning with R was ‘only 30,000’.
Again it is not racist to want to debate how many people like in the UK. Nor the impact on infrastructure and communities.
You can take a high minded view I am sure, but for other people they see a different picture.
Gargamel said:
Breadvan72 said:
There has never been uncontrolled immigration. Service deficits are caused by underfunding and by poor planning. You have been taught by liars and racists to blame immigrants. You have fallen for the con job.
Regardless of who sold what to whom BV, there are 2m more people living in the UK in 2019 than there were in 2009 as a result of migration. It is almost certainly poor planning as I recall the predicted number for migration from the then government for an accession country beginning with R was ‘only 30,000’.
Again it is not racist to want to debate how many people like in the UK. Nor the impact on infrastructure and communities.
You can take a high minded view I am sure, but for other people they see a different picture.
Breadvan72 said:
There has never been uncontrolled immigration. Service deficits are caused by underfunding and by poor planning. You have been taught by liars and racists to blame immigrants. You have fallen for the con job.
You need to have enough money to provide these services minimum wage jobs don't put much if anything into the pot ...
Breadvan72 said:
I am far from rich but that is irrelevant. Immigration is not limited to low paid workers. Many immigrants are higher rate tax payers.
I hate the word . I think you know what I meant. Many immigrants are but the vast majority are not and their distribution is causing problems with services. It’s a fact. Just want to add a reference to probably the most authoritative report on the affect of migration on wages:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2015...
From the conclusion:
"Closer examination reveals that the biggest effect is in the semi/unskilled services sector,
where a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants is associated with a 2
percent reduction in pay. "
Uncontrolled immigration has a measurable detrimental effect on the poorest - wages decrease, competition for housing and public services increase.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2015...
From the conclusion:
"Closer examination reveals that the biggest effect is in the semi/unskilled services sector,
where a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants is associated with a 2
percent reduction in pay. "
Uncontrolled immigration has a measurable detrimental effect on the poorest - wages decrease, competition for housing and public services increase.
Uncontrolled immigration does not occur. It has not occurred. It need not occur unless that's what is decided on. As for imposing greater controls, the UK could have done that at any time if it wished.
I note, by the way, that the further we get from the referendum, the more "this isn't only or even very much about immigration" seems to fade, and the more open people are about "this is only or is very much about immigration".
I note, by the way, that the further we get from the referendum, the more "this isn't only or even very much about immigration" seems to fade, and the more open people are about "this is only or is very much about immigration".
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 17th November 10:48
Breadvan72 said:
Uncontrolled immigration does not occur. It has not occurred. It need not occur unless that's what is decided on. As for imposing greater controls, the UK could have done that at any time if it wished.
I note, by the way, that the further we get from the referendum, the more "this isn't only or even very much about immigration" seems to fade, and the more open people are about "this is or only or is very much about immigration".
Without interpretating my post to be asking for you to act as an unpaid intern, could you point outI note, by the way, that the further we get from the referendum, the more "this isn't only or even very much about immigration" seems to fade, and the more open people are about "this is or only or is very much about immigration".
the posts that have led you to that conclusion ,please. TIA.
Breadvan72 said:
I note, by the way, that the further we get from the referendum, the more "this isn't only or even very much about immigration" seems to fade, and the more open people are about "this is or only or is very much about immigration".
I posted the opposite not long go, i.e. immigration not previously a key brexit issue for me and it's still the same. Strike one for the 'snotimmigrationists.It may be for others including the low-paid in various parts of the country.
Oilchange said:
I seem to remember Tony Blairs mob apologizing for 'opening the floodgates to immigration' which leads me to believe that uncontrolled immigration did happen.
BV’s assertionthat the UK could have placed unilateral controls on Freedom of Movement is of course pretty much nonsense in any practical sense, as to the claim that the has never been uncontrolled immigration. That could be true. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to see there has been uncontrolled migration from the EU to the UK.
It is estimated there are now over 1m illegal immigrants in the UK
In case any one has forgotten, Labour didn’t allow migrants in from concern for their fellow man. This was simply a cynical political move.
Turns out they were probably right to be concerned about a backlash from the ‘conservatively minded working class’
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.
Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.
Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.
Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.
He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.
He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.
He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.
Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.
On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour's immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.
In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a "driving political purpose" behind immigration policy.
He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.
But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.
"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.
"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland."
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.
"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.
"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."
Gargamel said:
In case any one has forgotten, Labour didn’t allow migrants in from concern for their fellow man. This was simply a cynical political move.
Turns out they were probably right to be concerned about a backlash from the ‘conservatively minded working class’
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.
Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.
Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.
Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.
He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.
He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.
He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.
Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.
On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour's immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.
In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a "driving political purpose" behind immigration policy.
He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.
But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.
"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.
"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland."
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.
"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.
"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons Ekaterina concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."
Quoting a Tufton street based “think tank” is a step down from the daily mail. Turns out they were probably right to be concerned about a backlash from the ‘conservatively minded working class’
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.
Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.
Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.
Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.
He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.
He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.
He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.
Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.
On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour's immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.
In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a "driving political purpose" behind immigration policy.
He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.
But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.
"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.
"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland."
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.
"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.
"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons Ekaterina concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."
Gargamel said:
Oilchange said:
I seem to remember Tony Blairs mob apologizing for 'opening the floodgates to immigration' which leads me to believe that uncontrolled immigration did happen.
BV’s assertionthat the UK could have placed unilateral controls on Freedom of Movement is of course pretty much nonsense in any practical sense, as to the claim that the has never been uncontrolled immigration. That could be true. Small boats, containers, in or underside of lorries, etc.
That well known senior Downing Street source that we all love so well is said to be saying today that the Russia report cannot be released because to do so might call the referendum into question and get in the way of “getting Brexit done” (which as all but however many of the 17. 4 million are left know means “get the long and slow process of Brexit started”). So, the report is plainly innocuous, then.
Meanwhile, the technology focused pole dancer has THE SAD because Johnson has blocked her. This late bid to regain ground in the Sex Pest Scandalympics after Mr A Windsor stole a striking lead has reinjected some froth into the contest.
Meanwhile, the technology focused pole dancer has THE SAD because Johnson has blocked her. This late bid to regain ground in the Sex Pest Scandalympics after Mr A Windsor stole a striking lead has reinjected some froth into the contest.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 17th November 12:28
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff