The Labour Government

[hampshireblue]

Whilst I agree that people talk about football and other such social things - I would say that it is certainly my experience that, if I hear anybody get into political discussion (a small percentage of the time), @Gray is correct to say.............there is no doubting what the really big issue is with the vast majority of the population.

And that is not hairy-arsed pissheads

You have had or overheard political discussions involving the "vast majority of the population"?

The ones you hear, like on BM, will be the noisy minority. In my local, in a Tory held seat, the main topic of conversation overheard was about the extended time to get into France and how the EU has it in for us, together with the water shortage and hose pipe ban.

And if this site is remotely representative, we're not seeing many actually having the balls to come out and say they're going to vote for Farage and the Grifters.

 

[Gray]

You have had or overheard political discussions involving the "vast majority of the population"?

The ones you hear, like on BM, will be the noisy minority. In my local, in a Tory held seat, the main topic of conversation overheard was about the extended time to get into France and how the EU has it in for us, together with the water shortage and hose pipe ban.

And if this site is remotely representative, we're not seeing many actually having the balls to come out and say they're going to vote for Farage and the Grifters.

If they don’t sort out illegal entry into our country, he will be getting my vote.

 

[hampshireblue]

If they don’t sort out illegal entry into our country, he will be getting my vote.

Define "sort out". I assume you are potentially happy to lose some of YOUR protections to "sort it out"?

What does the rest of Reform's "promises" look like to you?

 

[Gray]

Define "sort out". I assume you are potentially happy to lose some of YOUR protections to "sort it out"?

What does the rest of Reform's "promises" look like to you?

By sort out I mean stop it and return most of the ones already here. Most are economic refugees (asylum seekers) any way. I don’t give a toss about any other promises, we have had loads of unfulfilled ones from Labour and the Tories over the preceding years as it is.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

If they don’t sort out illegal entry into our country, he will be getting my vote.

So, if they do ‘sort it’ then he won’t be getting your vote?

 

[Gray]

So, if they do ‘sort it’ then he won’t be getting your vote?

No need to worry about them (Labour) being able to sort it out with Mr. Wishy Washy in charge.

 

[bluethrunthru]

By sort out I mean stop it and return most of the ones already here. Most are economic refugees (asylum seekers) any way. I don’t give a toss about any other promises, we have had loads of unfulfilled ones from Labour and the Tories over the preceding years as it is.

Things you need to understand.
1/ leaving the ECHR strips you of just about every right you take for granted.
2/ just turning people around and sticking them on a plane without processing any claim may well satisfy your wants and won't be impacted in any way by the ECHR if we have left. However states signed up to it have every right to view those actions as illegal. They will be under pressure even if they don't act themselves not to facilitate illegal deportations so could deny access to their air space so any flight will have to fly only over international waters probably without the assistance of any ECHR member states ATC.
3/ speaking of which there is no point in taking off unless you have authority to land at the destination.
4/ do you think any destination is going to agree because their government will be under internal pressure not to accept refugee's just to fix Britains "problem".

I could go on but I know you aren't interested - this is Brexit V2.0 - people thinking a very difficult issue can be sorted on the word of a snake oil salesman who wants to simply take away your rights to paid holidays - sick pay - state aid and to sell off the NHS making health care a rich persons thing only - I hope anyone who votes for him gets what he promises to deliver to you because you are in for a massive shock

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

If they don’t sort out illegal entry into our country, he will be getting my vote.

But Brexit is very largely down to him. Dealing with the entry of migrants to this country and removing them has been inexorably complicated by that Brexit. He sold a pack of lies to the country. How can you possibly square that off and then vote for him? Its madness

 

[hampshireblue]

No need to worry about them (Labour) being able to sort it out with Mr. Wishy Washy in charge.

Another "Big Joe" then! Just admit it, you're a Reform voter no matter what.

 

[hampshireblue]

Things you need to understand.
1/ leaving the ECHR strips you of just about every right you take for granted.
2/ just turning people around and sticking them on a plane without processing any claim may well satisfy your wants and won't be impacted in any way by the ECHR if we have left. However states signed up to it have every right to view those actions as illegal. They will be under pressure even if they don't act themselves not to facilitate illegal deportations so could deny access to their air space so any flight will have to fly only over international waters probably without the assistance of any ECHR member states ATC.
3/ speaking of which there is no point in taking off unless you have authority to land at the destination.
4/ do you think any destination is going to agree because their government will be under internal pressure not to accept refugee's just to fix Britains "problem".

I could go on but I know you aren't interested - this is Brexit V2.0 - people thinking a very difficult issue can be sorted on the word of a snake oil salesman who wants to simply take away your rights to paid holidays - sick pay - state aid and to sell off the NHS making health care a rich persons thing only - I hope anyone who votes for him gets what he promises to deliver to you because you are in for a massive shock

This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[hampshireblue]

By sort out I mean stop it and return most of the ones already here. Most are economic refugees (asylum seekers) any way. I don’t give a toss about any other promises, we have had loads of unfulfilled ones from Labour and the Tories over the preceding years as it is.

My bad wording, by promises, I meant manifesto.

So he gets rid of the irregulars and eventually goes down the American route for the NHS? Still happy and worth it?

 

[Gray]

Another "Big Joe" then! Just admit it, you're a Reform voter no matter what.

I move about in General Elections but have steadfastly stuck to voting Liberal in local elections because we have some brilliant councillors who always respond to any problems that you put to them.

 

[BTH]

No need to worry about them (Labour) being able to sort it out with Mr. Wishy Washy in charge.

I think we all know where you stand but Keir Starmer has had a bit more than a year.

By contrast, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Lis Truss and Rishi Sunak had 14 years and were unable to "sort it out."

My guess is that you were perfectly fine with that.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

No need to worry about them (Labour) being able to sort it out with Mr. Wishy Washy in charge.

So, Reform whatever the circumstances.

 

[Vic]

Thanks for that.

I don't know what your financial circumstances are @Hertzblue, but the majority of people on this forum would be a "net cost" on this measure. Those UK residents aren't doing so well on this measure either - in fact it looks like we get a bonus with migrants who go straight into the economy as adults, rather than reaching 18 already in massive "debt" to society. All the people who arrive as adults, then return to their country of birth after retirement, are pretty much superchargers for the economy ;)

But my point is that if you take out all the people who are a net cost, then almost nobody would be left making money. There are very few companies who can exist without "net cost" workers or a large customer base.

It's got limited academic interest, but in terms of estimating someone's value in the economy, it's nonsense on a stick.

It got plenty of coverage in the right wing press. The assumptions seem to be:

1. low-wage immigrants stay on low wages for life
2. they use more public resources than rich people (they certainly won't be collecting state pension as long as the rich)
3. their economic value of their work is not given much credence - how much of their "net cost" is because they work for employers like Amazon who don't pay enough tax on profits?
4. because they are low paid, they get in-work benefits (but if they were not low-paid, wage costs would rise and increase inflation for everybody)
5. it seems to reckon that a low-wage migrant will not be paying a proportionate amount toward infrastructure (e.g. new roads - but the low-waged are less likely to drive and more likely to be using public transport and keeping it viable)
6. it seems not to account for higher labour force participation by immigrants, and that helps growth

It doesn't seem really to chime with other stuff the OBR has said, including that higher net migration reduces government borrowing

The impact of migration on the fiscal forecast - Office for Budget Responsibility

Following the upwards revision to our migration forecast, this box explored the implications of higher migration on our central forecasts for tax revenues, spending and borrowing. We also drew on alternative scenarios for migration to illustrate how uncertainty in the migration forecast...

obr.uk

 

[bluenova]

It got plenty of coverage in the right wing press. The assumptions seem to be:

1. low-wage immigrants stay on low wages for life
2. they use more public resources than rich people (they certainly won't be collecting state pension as long as the rich)
3. their economic value of their work is not given much credence - how much of their "net cost" is because they work for employers like Amazon who don't pay enough tax on profits?
4. because they are low paid, they get in-work benefits (but if they were not low-paid, wage costs would rise and increase inflation for everybody)
5. it seems to reckon that a low-wage migrant will not be paying a proportionate amount toward infrastructure (e.g. new roads - but the low-waged are less likely to drive and more likely to be using public transport and keeping it viable)
6. it seems not to account for higher labour force participation by immigrants, and that helps growth

It doesn't seem really to chime with other stuff the OBR has said, including that higher net migration reduces government borrowing

The impact of migration on the fiscal forecast - Office for Budget Responsibility

Following the upwards revision to our migration forecast, this box explored the implications of higher migration on our central forecasts for tax revenues, spending and borrowing. We also drew on alternative scenarios for migration to illustrate how uncertainty in the migration forecast...

obr.uk

You'd think the simple fact that the graph shows that a typical non-migrant is "more" of a net cost would be a bit of an indicator that it's useless.

It's one of the odd things about the right wing - that so many are happy to think of themselves as a cost to the economy, grateful that the wealthy are supporting the rest of us (and I'm not suggesting this is @Hertzblue, but I do know other people who buy into it completely).

 

[Hertzblue]

Thanks for that.

I don't know what your financial circumstances are @Hertzblue, but the majority of people on this forum would be a "net cost" on this measure. Those UK residents aren't doing so well on this measure either - in fact it looks like we get a bonus with migrants who go straight into the economy as adults, rather than reaching 18 already in massive "debt" to society. All the people who arrive as adults, then return to their country of birth after retirement, are pretty much superchargers for the economy ;)

But my point is that if you take out all the people who are a net cost, then almost nobody would be left making money. There are very few companies who can exist without "net cost" workers or a large customer base.

It's got limited academic interest, but in terms of estimating someone's value in the economy, it's nonsense on a stick.

Bit presumptuous to claim the majority on here would be a net cost but not relevant, if you are working on an average some will be below and some not. I agree this is an extremely rough measure but it's all we have from our Treasury who have maintained the facade that migration must be economically beneficial. It is however a significant piece of work in that the Treasury are changing tack, they realise the game is up.

 

[Hertzblue]

It got plenty of coverage in the right wing press. The assumptions seem to be:

1. low-wage immigrants stay on low wages for life
2. they use more public resources than rich people (they certainly won't be collecting state pension as long as the rich)
3. their economic value of their work is not given much credence - how much of their "net cost" is because they work for employers like Amazon who don't pay enough tax on profits?
4. because they are low paid, they get in-work benefits (but if they were not low-paid, wage costs would rise and increase inflation for everybody)
5. it seems to reckon that a low-wage migrant will not be paying a proportionate amount toward infrastructure (e.g. new roads - but the low-waged are less likely to drive and more likely to be using public transport and keeping it viable)
6. it seems not to account for higher labour force participation by immigrants, and that helps growth

It doesn't seem really to chime with other stuff the OBR has said, including that higher net migration reduces government borrowing

The impact of migration on the fiscal forecast - Office for Budget Responsibility

Following the upwards revision to our migration forecast, this box explored the implications of higher migration on our central forecasts for tax revenues, spending and borrowing. We also drew on alternative scenarios for migration to illustrate how uncertainty in the migration forecast...

obr.uk

There you go Vic..

It doesn't seem really to chime with other stuff the OBR has said

Thats because they know the game is up. To be fair the initial surge of migration mainly from Eastern Europe probably was a positive in economic terms, but it hasn't been for a long time and they know it . It simply isn't defensible for them any more. The next Government will pull back the curtains on this and I expect it to be shocking.

 

[Hertzblue]

You'd think the simple fact that the graph shows that a typical non-migrant is "more" of a net cost would be a bit of an indicator that it's useless.

It's one of the odd things about the right wing - that so many are happy to think of themselves as a cost to the economy, grateful that the wealthy are supporting the rest of us (and I'm not suggesting this is @Hertzblue, but I do know other people who buy into it completely).

I have certainly not been a cost to the economy though now in my later years I daresay I will become one,they can take it out of what they have had from me, I am sure they will remain in profit.

I said in my earlier reply that the data is limited but it is amusing that when the Treasury have maintained that migration is a net positive for the economy for the last 20 years, I have no doubt that the likes of yourself and Vic will have lapped that up. Now the same organisation about turns and says , ah well actually that might not be the case , your first reaction is to claim they must have got it wrong lol.

You appear to have a problem accepting that there is any negative aspects to mass immigration whether that be in terms of crime, economics or whatever regardless of the evidence . I have attached below a link to a recent Dutch study on the economics of migration to the Netherlands ( I did post it a while ago ) it is the best in terms of detail I have seen and is the sort of thing we need to do ourselves. It covers the economics of type of migrant , where they originate from , culture , quite illuminating. Something to get your teeth into.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://docs.iza.org/dp17569.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjR1KmZyqmPAxUOZ0EAHUQDI54QFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1z-Bgq4XelzwlnQDPNYgAX

 

[BobKowalski]

I have certainly not been a cost to the economy though now in my later years I daresay I will become one,they can take it out of what they have had from me, I am sure they will remain in profit.

I said in my earlier reply that the data is limited but it is amusing that when the Treasury have maintained that migration is a net positive for the economy for the last 20 years, I have no doubt that the likes of yourself and Vic will have lapped that up. Now the same organisation about turns and says , ah well actually that might not be the case , your first reaction is to claim they must have got it wrong lol.

You appear to have a problem accepting that there is any negative aspects to mass immigration whether that be in terms of crime, economics or whatever regardless of the evidence . I have attached below a link to a recent Dutch study on the economics of migration to the Netherlands ( I did post it a while ago ) it is the best in terms of detail I have seen and is the sort of thing we need to do ourselves. It covers the economics of type of migrant , where they originate from , culture , quite illuminating. Something to get your teeth into.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://docs.iza.org/dp17569.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjR1KmZyqmPAxUOZ0EAHUQDI54QFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1z-Bgq4XelzwlnQDPNYgAX

For those not willing to read the entire document I will summarise as follows:

Economic migrants - net positive in fiscal terms.

Refugees/family migrants - net negative in fiscal terms.

They also have those arriving in the country to study as a net negative. Personally, I would dispute that one as in the UK those here to study are shelling out fees for their courses and tend not to stay beyond the duration of their course.

Refugees/asylum seekers will be a negative given the cost to the state in processing their claims, so never likely to recoup that initial outlay. This is self evident.

The greater the disparity of cultural background also correlates to cost. This is interesting as commonwealth immigration blurs that disparity. English is widely spoken and there is a familiarity with British culture or at least an idealised perception of British culture. For arrivals from the Indian subcontinent, Netherlands would be much more alien.

What else? If your parents are low achievers, the likelihood is that your children will be as well. We see that here irrespective of ethnic background, although we are often told that white working class boys are being left behind. Poverty is a drag on mobility and generational achievement is again self evident.

In short, the report concludes that the best immigrants are European and Protestant ie as similar as possible to the native population. We should join the EU and take advantage of that. What do you think? :)