Reform UK Party Limited Company

[BrianW]

You would need an awful lot of complex facts before you. And then you would have to consider all the implications. As I said, 97% of immigrants under the Tories came in with legal visas.

Now, as the Tories did not gain any political advantage by allowing such huge immigration, what was their motive?

My presumption is they judged it an economic necessity or at least an economic advantage. What other possible motive would they have? (I don't believe conspiratorial BS like 'they were obeying the WEF'.) But seriously, why would a Conservative government - a Conservative government - allow huge immigration if not for economic reasons? I really struggle to see what other motive there would be. It is electorally unpopular, especially among Tory voters. What is the reason?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Don’t know but turn it around whats the minimum immigration we can’t cope without . Probably just as hard to answer.

I would say you add up the lack of skilled positions and try and use that as a starting point. But it's not just down to that. As our health care recruitment is having some seriously negative affects on other countries, where shortages are now occurring.

But at a guess I would say we should be looking at 150 to 250k tops and to my mind these need to be skilled. We need to encourage our own unskilled people into jobs. It just doesnt stack up that we have so many people on disability benefit. The number has nearly doubled in the last 25years, how is this possible when as a nation we are getting healthier? Something isn't right in this area. But what's certain is we can't sustain 1.2 million people per annum.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

You would need an awful lot of complex facts before you. And then you would have to consider all the implications. As I said, 97% of immigrants under the Tories came in with legal visas.

Now, as the Tories did not gain any political advantage by allowing such huge immigration, what was their motive?

My presumption is they judged it an economic necessity or at least an economic advantage. What other possible motive would they have? (I don't believe conspiratorial BS like 'they were obeying the WEF'.) But seriously, why would a Conservative government - a Conservative government - allow huge immigration if not for economic reasons? I really struggle to see what other motive there would be. It is electorally unpopular, especially among Tory voters. What is the reason?

You missed out blatant incompetence?

 

[blueparrot]

I would say you add up the lack of skilled positions and try and use that as a starting point. But it's not just down to that. As our health care recruitment is having some seriously negative affects on other countries, where shortages are now occurring.

But at a guess I would say we should be looking at 150 to 250k tops and to my mind these need to be skilled. We need to encourage our own unskilled people into jobs. It just doesnt stack up that we have so many people on disability benefit. The number has nearly doubled in the last 25years, how is this possible when as a nation we are getting healthier? Something isn't right in this area. But what's certain is we can't sustain 1.2 million people per annum.

No idea of the answer but it will need to be way more the 250k, especially with ageing population and declining birth rates.

 

[hilts]

You would need an awful lot of complex facts before you. And then you would have to consider all the implications. As I said, 97% of immigrants under the Tories came in with legal visas.

Now, as the Tories did not gain any political advantage by allowing such huge immigration, what was their motive?

My presumption is they judged it an economic necessity or at least an economic advantage. What other possible motive would they have? (I don't believe conspiratorial BS like 'they were obeying the WEF'.) But seriously, why would a Conservative government - a Conservative government - allow huge immigration if not for economic reasons? I really struggle to see what other motive there would be. It is electorally unpopular, especially among Tory voters. What is the reason?

Why would a political party steeped in capitalism and supply and demand , whose members and mps are often business owners or receive donations from companies, want an employers market? Why would a party of ,'growth' for electoral purposes prefer a higher population with lower wages?

Erm.....

 

[hilts]

No idea of the answer but it will need to be way more the 250k, especially with ageing population and declining birth rates.

We always come back to the pyramid of people , the deeply flawed scheme that continues to dominate. The more units of production you have the more money you can make.

 

[BrianW]

You missed out blatant incompetence?

You really think they allowed in vast numbers of immigrants through sheer incompetence?

I find that a stretch, even for the Tories. You see it would be positive incompetence, not an oversight. Those visas don't issue themselves.

I think the whole thing needs to be looked at very seriously. I would start by expanding our training for doctors, dentists (above all), nurses, IT engineers and other essential professions. We ought to be producing enough of these, or at least 95% of the requirement. However, I know this means more expenditure and thus, at least in the short term, higher taxes. It's also something that by its very nature will take time to kick in. Say two years to set up, at least five more to have any real-world impact. During which time, you'll be paying extra tax. For, on the face of it, nothing. Not an electoral dream, is it?

The next question is whether there are enough of us, generally, to serve the needs of the economy. I would start by encouraging more childbirth, spending a lot more on education and training - not least on those above school age but in idleness - and (sadly) I would feel duty-bound to increase pension age. Though that last might involve some restructuring (very socialist this) to ensure that people over (say) 55 are guaranteed jobs that they are fit to perform. (It could not be left solely to the market.)

Again, much of this would be medium-term, and most of it would be costly. (You know what that means.)

The X-factor in this algebra is whether we would still have to import some labour to maintain the economy. I suspect we would, but I don't pretend to have the figures. Truth is, if the economy fails due to a shortage of labour we are all fucked.

In short, to solve this issue, you need government intervention and a great deal of public expenditure. And no politician has the bollocks to say this, or even to set out the facts. It's so much easier to whine about people in boats and stir up resentment. That's not just cheap, it costs almost nothing and is very easy to administer. A politician's dream. Say the right shit and people will even vote for you.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

You really think they allowed in vast numbers of immigrants through sheer incompetence?

I find that a stretch, even for the Tories. You see it would be positive incompetence, not an oversight. Those visas don't issue themselves.

I think the whole thing needs to be looked at very seriously. I would start by expanding our training for doctors, dentists (above all), nurses, IT engineers and other essential professions. We ought to be producing enough of these, or at least 95% of the requirement. However, I know this means more expenditure and thus, at least in the short term, higher taxes. It's also something that by its very nature will take time to kick in. Say two years to set up, at least five more to have any real-world impact. During which time, you'll be paying extra tax. For, on the face of it, nothing. Not an electoral dream, is it?

The next question is whether there are enough of us, generally, to serve the needs of the economy. I would start by encouraging more childbirth, spending a lot more on education and training - not least on those above school age but in idleness - and (sadly) I would feel duty-bound to increase pension age. Though that last might involve some restructuring (very socialist this) to ensure that people over (say) 55 are guaranteed jobs that they are fit to perform. (It could not be left solely to the market.)

Again, much of this would be medium-term, and most of it would be costly. (You know what that means.)

The X-factor in this algebra is whether we would still have to import some labour to maintain the economy. I suspect we would, but I don't pretend to have the figures. Truth is, if the economy fails due to a shortage of labour we are all fucked.

In short, to solve this issue, you need government intervention and a great deal of public expenditure. And no politician has the bollocks to say this, or even to set out the facts. It's so much easier to whine about people in boats and stir up resentment. That's not just cheap, it costs almost nothing and is very easy to administer. A politician's dream. Say the right shit and people will even vote for you.

Yes probably they did. That a combination of short term thinking. Where do you house 1.2m extra people? You can't is the answer.

 

[meltonblue]

No they ain't that's a nonsense argument. Should labour for instance get far more coverage just because the system is useless and gives out stupid majorities without having the backing of the public?

Bluemoon - where too many prefer confirmation of their bias and all their tall tales involve speaking to loads of real people(honestly) who agree with them.

Eh? I literally said in a subsequent post that I have no issue with the coverage reform gets and if anything want to hear from them more.

My point was that shouldn’t be at the expense of others though. The Lib Dem’s currently have 72 members of parliament. They are representing far more of the electorate in parliament than Reform and will have a bigger influence on this session of parliament and whatever their perspective has the potential to directly influence policy. If someone is a reform voter in a Lib Dem area, they absolutely should want to hear what your constituent mp thinks too.

The irony of your second paragraph is that’s what you are suggesting far more than me…

 

[Vic]

I think you will find that polls state that immigration is quite a high priority, but not the top priority by any means.

The problem is it's impossible to have an objective, mature debate on immigration and politicians know it. Too much emotion is involved.

Our demographics mean we need a degree of immigration. How much and to cover what skills is open to debate, as are the costs and implications of reducing it by training more native Brits to cover shortages in certain professions.

Just warbling about it gets us nowhere. Under the Tories, 97% of immigrants arrived legally on visas. 3% were asylum seekers of whom roughly 70% were thought to be genuine when processed. (Much of the problem was caused by deliberate delays in processing.) These are the broad facts and you have to start from there when considering how to reduce these totals.

Facts, you say. Is there no alternative?