They did.The Blair years certainly made things better for a lot of society....
Never said it was positive, its only positive if you get migrants with the skills the country needs which I think is what the studies show. The idea that we welcome everyone with open arms because a number of them might be a doctor or scientist is misguided.If it's all so positive why are we struggling so much in so many areas ? Regardless of the government in charge?
It does sound like a tall story. I can’t imagine anyone going around asking the staff what country they came from, would come across as a racist nutter.
I don’t need to look it up, I know. English and French. Hopefully you can see how your hypothesis to help your mate out of a hole hasn’t worked. Same as Vic perhaps he meant 12k Asians work in the trust.
He has started to make up stories to try and bring is points to life. Not just this thread but others as well. Weird.
It does sound like a tall story. I can’t imagine anyone going around asking the staff what country they came from, would come across as a racist nutter.
Can't argue with that. Less said about the Brown years the better though.The Blair years certainly made things better for a lot of society....
Brown had the 2008 crash to contend with, we'd be in a better place today had we stuck with Brown and Darling rather than Cameron and Osborne.Can't argue with that. Less aid about the Brown years the better though.
Disagree on that but opinion is what a forum is for.Brown had the 2008 crash to contend with, we'd be in a better place today had we stuck with Brown and Darling rather than Cameron and Osborne.
He also sold a lot of our gold reserves at bottom price, and they went skywards afterwards.Brown had the 2008 crash to contend with, we'd be in a better place today had we stuck with Brown and Darling rather than Cameron and Osborne.
There’s also a counter argument that the sale was a positive decision in that gold had been under-performing for years and was paying no dividends. The sale enabled the government to pay off a fair chunk of the national debt and keep repayment interest down on the remainder.He also sold a lot of our gold reserves at bottom price, and they went skywards afterwards.
He also sold a lot of our gold reserves at bottom price, and they went skywards afterwards.
as far as I am concerned;Never said it was positive, its only positive if you get migrants with the skills the country needs which I think is what the studies show. The idea that we welcome everyone with open arms because a number of them might be a doctor or scientist is misguided.
In any normal market, all of the roles we cant fill in things like the care sector should drive up salaries until they become attractive to people, but instead we have gone down the route of suppressing wage growth in lower skilled roles in favour of importing cheap labour. That cheap labour, particularly from the poorer parts of the developing world brings their dependants who then need supporting and are entitled to benefits along with the cost of housing, schooling etc. as the main wage earner is employed.
You then have someone who from UK PLC point of view financially providing a net negative contribution, whilst also having to pay to support the UK resident who decides that the job doesn't pay enough to warrant coming off benefits and into work. All of which causes more pressure on housing, health care, education etc.
Current numbers are the equivalent of a larger city than Leeds. That is a hell of a burden on health care, social services, infrastructure, housing....Very true we area land of immigrants and undoubtedly better for it, however there is clearly a rate at which immigration reaches a point where successful integration is not possible. I would suggest that anyone who thinks we are capable of successfully integrating the current number of people coming in is living in cloud cukkooland. The facts simply do not back up this statement.
If these recently released numbers are sustainable why is the new government criticising them?
And if you still think they are sustainable, can I ask what do you think is the maximum level/ rate of immigration above which integration would cause problems, if you think therenis such a level? I would suggest that rate is about 50,000 per annum, primarilly based on our capacity to build housing and the current backlog in this area.
As someone who works in the medical industry, you’ve made that up.And if it helps the doubters look it up. South Tees Trust has employees from over 200 countries including 122k from Asia - but yeah I sneaked into the HoC and doctored the library there to back my claims up.
Agreed a level of immigration I'd required but needs balancing with the unused resource we currently have.Current numbers are the equivalent of a larger city than Leeds. That is a hell of a burden on health care, social services, infrastructure, housing....
We need immigration is some areas but it is out of control since you know what.
I've no idea what he meant. 122k was ridiculous, I guessed it might be a typo or a figure for a much wider area than that Trust, but it obviously wasn't for that trust as the total workforce is under 12k. I did check the annual report and it's maybe 1.2k of the FTE workforce is BME.I don’t need to look it up, I know. English and French. Hopefully you can see how your hypothesis to help your mate out of a hole hasn’t worked. Same as Vic perhaps he meant 12k Asians work in the trust.
He has started to make up stories to try and bring is points to life. Not just this thread but others as well. Weird.