UKIP

[lloydie]

They do seem able to hold a thoroughly rousing Rally.

 

[BigJimLittleJim]

They do seem able to hold a thoroughly rousing Rally.

trying to think of another party who used to hold rather mesmerising rallies, circa WW2, can't quite think who tho..............hmmmmm, tricky.







Seriously, politics isn't fun in it's proper form, those who manage to make it so are playing with their punters, to disguise their true intentions, or in fact to cover their lack of actual policies, IMHO.

 

[adrian99]

[/b]


I think I know the answer to this, is it because it's a wasted vote on a one trick pony that only panders to small minded xenophobes?

Please explain this ludicrous observation.

Recent political history tells us this is so, Um Bongo, Um Bongo.



That was an explanation which rhymes, I am feeling pretty good about myself right now, thanks for the opportunity.

I think you will find the person who said that was told by desist by the party. It's irrelevant in any case as UKIP has pledged to reduce foreign aid substantially. It makes no sense to borrow money and give it away when we are cutting spending at home. The Tories, Labour and the Lib/Dems have pledged to increase spending on foreign aid whilst our people are having their services reduced, madness.

 

[kev20971]

So what's in for me if ukip won the election, more public holidays, higher wages , less hours at work ? I don't think so, And how would we go on with trips to Europe for the Champions League, would the rest of Europe be a pain in the arse like Russia, with visa ?

 

[Rascal]

We don't need immigration at the levels we see today and certainly not uncontrolled unskilled immigration. This is why UKIP would bring in a points based immigration system similar to the Australian model that allows the best and the brightest to come here, those that are needed and can contribute the most to society and the exchequer. This system would also make all applicants equal no matter where they apply from in the world, as opposed to the current system that allows predominately white Europeans free entry into the UK but has a different set of rules for the rest of the world the majority of whom are not white.

If we allow the current immigration waves to continue what do we do when every square metre of the country is covered by houses built to accommodate these people and their offspring.

UKIP are not saying that we don't need immigrants, what we are saying is that we need those that have the skills Britain needs, those that can contribute to the Exchequer and that the numbers must be controlled by laws created and voted for in our own parliament not created for us by unelected commissioners in in Brussels.

UKIP are pretty clear that want to slow down immigration but to do it we have leave to the EU. As long as we are EU members the debate is always a false debate.

UKIP from what i have seen say little abour foreign students coming here to study. The effect of cutting foreign student numbers on our Universities could be catastrophic in terms of funding.


I have also not seen UKIP say anything at all about the effects of there immigration policy on emmigration. Surely its cloud cuckoo land to believe that if we introduce strict immigration controls that other countries will allow UK nationals to move to there countries. Seeing as how many elder Brits live abroard would denial of emmigration for them just exacerbate any problems we have ongoing regarding an aging society.

 

[adrian99]

THe problem I have with all of this immigration commentary (well, one of the problems) is that no one seems to tackle the thorny issue that our governments liabilities are, and will continue, to grow at an exponential rate. Due in no small part to lower birth rates and greater medical care.

The proportion of people aged 65 and above will grow a YoY, thats a simple fact.

THis puts pressure on health care, pressure on hospitals, pressure on state owned care homes, and not least of all, huge pressure on the cost of public pensions.

Now, how is this counteracted? Increase birth rates? Increase immigration? How do we offset the required outgoings with required incomes (afterall, every party is screaming about the deficit and has been doing for years).

The other solution I can see is greater political union within the EU, a Supra-national European tax rather than sovereign, and redistribution where neccessary in terms of healthcare (etc). Of courses that is not desirable to a lot of people, so can't see that happening.

So where does that leave us? unfortunately we need immigration. We don't breed enough to balance our assets and our liabilities.

For savvy investors with a more long-term horizon, theres probably an opportunity, though.

We don't need immigration at the levels we see today and certainly not uncontrolled unskilled immigration. This is why UKIP would bring in a points based immigration system similar to the Australian model that allows the best and the brightest to come here, those that are needed and can contribute the most to society and the exchequer. This system would also make all applicants equal no matter where they apply from in the world, as opposed to the current system that allows predominately white Europeans free entry into the UK but has a different set of rules for the rest of the world the majority of whom are not white.

If we allow the current immigration waves to continue what do we do when every square metre of the country is covered by houses built to accommodate these people and their offspring.

UKIP are not saying that we don't need immigrants, what we are saying is that we need those that have the skills Britain needs, those that can contribute to the Exchequer and that the numbers must be controlled by laws created and voted for in our own parliament not created for us by unelected commissioners in in Brussels.

Help me out here, I'm not interested in slinging I just want to understand the logic behind what you say.

You want us to have a system like the Australian system? I hear this system lorded a lot by UKIP and its supporters, so being the kind of person who wants to have sensible policies implemented I looked into Australian migration and why this seems to be the holy grail of people arguing for reduced immigration.

The information I found surprised me to say the least and makes me question whether you actually know what you're talking about or if you're just using soundbite language you've heard other people use.

Australia accepted 244,000 immigrants into the country last year. This is extremely similar to the number let in by the UK which is also circa 240,000 for the tax year 2013-14.

Proper Source (not the Telegraph/Mail): ABoS

Of course there is more than one glaring difference between the UK and Australia. The first being that Australia has a much lower population, in fact looking at net migration per capita you find Australia's is nearly twice as high.

Source: Wiki

So I guess my questions can be summarised as this:

1. Why have you seemingly chosen to design an immigration system on a completely different country that is sparsely populated, and the size of a continent?
2. If this system allows twice as many people per capita into the country, how is it going to reduce the strain on public services?
3. Whilst slightly different to the immigration issue as a whole, are you aware that a lot of people see Australia's policy towards asylum seekers as not just cruel and abhorrent, but actually in contravention of basic human rights and illegal? If so why would we want to follow this system, are you condoning their treatment of asylum seekers?

Source: Open letter signed by 190 academics accusing the Aus federal government of an unlawful and inhumane policy on asylum seekers

I'm in genuine desire of a proper debate here, like I say I'm interested in addressing the issue and not slinging.

Happy to have a dialogue. UKIP's spokesman on migration and financial affairs Steven Woolfe told us at the party conference that net migration would be limited to 50,000 a year under this points based system. Just because we are suggesting a system similar to Australia does not mean we are willing to accept the numbers Australia are prepared to accept, we are different countries with different economies and requirements, so we will mirror their system but set our own numbers, committing UKIP to to bringing down net immigration to 50,000 people a year for employment.

Big business won't like this because they want to recruit ready trained staff from wherever they can get them, they are too selfish to invest in training our people, this does not benefit the unemployed nor does it benefit the exchequer as tax payers bear the burden of the unemployed.

The bottom line is we need to train our people to do the jobs where skills shortages exist, for example it is predicted we will need an addition 50,000 nurses in the next 3-5 years, recruiting from overseas makes no sense when we have plenty of unemployed people who can be trained and are desperate for employment. That's what we used to do years ago, not import ready made trained staff because they are either cheaper or a short cut. Business will always want to take the cheapest most flexible solution to recruitment, it is governments job to ensure they recruit in the best interest of the country, it's people and the tax payer.

The policy is announced by Steven Woolfe MEP was

"Firstly, we believe all people from whichever country they come from should be treated the same if they wish to come to our country.

Secondly, we will not allow the British state to discriminate by religion, origin or ethnicity.

Thirdly, we believe that Europeans should receive the same treatment as non Europeans. We recognise that an appropriately qualified German doctor has the same right to apply to work in the UK as an appropriately qualified Indian Doctor.

Fourthly, we can not have a completely open door immigration policy to the whole world we need to have a selective and skills based policy that balances the need of economic growth and society.

To achieve this UKIP will adopt the Australian points based system that matches skills to the industries that need them and that can permit immigration and settlement without overcrowding.

Fifthly, within the points based system UKIP commits to bringing UK net migration down to 50,00 people a year for employment. "

 

[Rascal]

The policy is announced by Steven Woolfe MEP was

"Firstly, we believe all people from whichever country they come from should be treated the same if they wish to come to our country.

Secondly, we will not allow the British state to discriminate by religion, origin or ethnicity.

Thirdly, we believe that Europeans should receive the same treatment as non Europeans. We recognise that an appropriately qualified German doctor has the same right to apply to work in the UK as an appropriately qualified Indian Doctor.

Fourthly, we can not have a completely open door immigration policy to the whole world we need to have a selective and skills based policy that balances the need of economic growth and society.

To achieve this UKIP will adopt the Australian points based system that matches skills to the industries that need them and that can permit immigration and settlement without overcrowding.

Fifthly, within the points based system UKIP commits to bringing UK net migration down to 50,00 people a year for employment. "

Of course as my previous post pointed out all reliant on the UK leaving the EU

No mention of students

No mention of emmigration

No mention of asylum

And what happens if the economy explodes into amazing growth and we have nobody to do the jobs that are needed because of an arbitary target.

The poliy sounds all well and good but it is more porous than my mamas colander

 

[hilts]

The policy is announced by Steven Woolfe MEP was

"Firstly, we believe all people from whichever country they come from should be treated the same if they wish to come to our country.

Secondly, we will not allow the British state to discriminate by religion, origin or ethnicity.

Thirdly, we believe that Europeans should receive the same treatment as non Europeans. We recognise that an appropriately qualified German doctor has the same right to apply to work in the UK as an appropriately qualified Indian Doctor.

Fourthly, we can not have a completely open door immigration policy to the whole world we need to have a selective and skills based policy that balances the need of economic growth and society.

To achieve this UKIP will adopt the Australian points based system that matches skills to the industries that need them and that can permit immigration and settlement without overcrowding.

Fifthly, within the points based system UKIP commits to bringing UK net migration down to 50,00 people a year for employment. "

Of course as my previous post pointed out all reliant on the UK leaving the EU

No mention of students

No mention of emmigration

No mention of asylum

And what happens if the economy explodes into amazing growth and we have nobody to do the jobs that are needed because of an arbitary target.

The poliy sounds all well and good but it is more porous than my mamas colander

There is a flip side to the last point though, to most people i think the argument is about numbers

 

[Rascal]

The policy is announced by Steven Woolfe MEP was

"Firstly, we believe all people from whichever country they come from should be treated the same if they wish to come to our country.

Secondly, we will not allow the British state to discriminate by religion, origin or ethnicity.

Thirdly, we believe that Europeans should receive the same treatment as non Europeans. We recognise that an appropriately qualified German doctor has the same right to apply to work in the UK as an appropriately qualified Indian Doctor.

Fourthly, we can not have a completely open door immigration policy to the whole world we need to have a selective and skills based policy that balances the need of economic growth and society.

To achieve this UKIP will adopt the Australian points based system that matches skills to the industries that need them and that can permit immigration and settlement without overcrowding.

Fifthly, within the points based system UKIP commits to bringing UK net migration down to 50,00 people a year for employment. "

Of course as my previous post pointed out all reliant on the UK leaving the EU

No mention of students

No mention of emmigration

No mention of asylum

And what happens if the economy explodes into amazing growth and we have nobody to do the jobs that are needed because of an arbitary target.

The poliy sounds all well and good but it is more porous than my mamas colander

There is a flip side to the last point though, to most people i think the argument is about numbers

Numbers over reality appears a dangerous game to play. A vote winning game perhaps, but still dangerous.

 

[roaminblue]

We don't need immigration at the levels we see today and certainly not uncontrolled unskilled immigration.

who says? UKIP? Tories? Labour? If so, they're lying to you.

Let me offer a bit of perspective here. Future, unfunded, government liabilities are currently projected to be £5 trillion. The unfunded is key. This comes directly from current workers to pay for retiring workers. The liabilities for state pension, discounted back, stands at 263% of british gdp.

Now bear in mind, this calculation is based upon a discount rate of 3%, some economists believe a true discount rate is closer to 1%. Want to know what that makes the liabilities? A huge one. MAkes them grow exponentially.

Now Income in 2013 was circa the 612bn mark. You have the interest rate, why not try and see what figure for projected in come you get. Admitedly this is based upon today's income, and as the workforce expands and tax credit increases, you may well get a higher figure. So weight it upwards.

This is why UKIP would bring in a points based immigration system similar to the Australian model that allows the best and the brightest to come here, those that are needed and can contribute the most to society and the exchequer. This system would also make all applicants equal no matter where they apply from in the world, as opposed to the current system that allows predominately white Europeans free entry into the UK but has a different set of rules for the rest of the world the majority of whom are not white.

As above, the tax credits still out current immigration levels, so tax will certainly out strip UKIPs wanted immigration levels.

Now, whether or not you think that immigration is the key to increasing the income is a different conversastion. YOu may well decide that you want to increase income tax for the existing a great deal (of course that still doesn't cope with the dangerous imblanace between the growing aging population and our working level employees).

As for the second part, its very nice of UKIP to support the minority application. That is if its anything other than a pleasant soundbite for the overal reduction in immigration, which, lets face it, it is
If we allow the current immigration waves to continue what do we do when every square metre of the country is covered by houses built to accommodate these people and their offspring.

UKIP are not saying that we don't need immigrants, what we are saying is that we need those that have the skills Britain needs, those that can contribute to the Exchequer and that the numbers must be controlled by laws created and voted for in our own parliament not created for us by unelected commissioners in in Brussels.

That may be, but UKIP, like most political parties have the economic nouse of an aubergine. I work with exellent economists who are a lot more competent (I'd wager) than most political economists. They are significantly worried about the prospect of both a) government liabilities and b) exiting the EU.

Now that isn't to say other opinions are welcome, but on our weekly round up calls the concern is pronounced. And I know who I would trust, because their vested interests do not lie along side those of political parties; whose incentive structures are about appeasing a politically inactive public through popular opinion and saying the right thing.

 

[Rascal]

We don't need immigration at the levels we see today and certainly not uncontrolled unskilled immigration.

who says? UKIP? Tories? Labour? If so, they're lying to you.

Let me offer a bit of perspective here. Future, unfunded, government liabilities are currently projected to be £5 trillion. The unfunded is key. This comes directly from current workers to pay for retiring workers. The liabilities for state pension, discounted back, stands at 263% of british gdp.

Now bear in mind, this calculation is based upon a discount rate of 3%, some economists believe a true discount rate is closer to 1%. Want to know what that makes the liabilities? A huge one. MAkes them grow exponentially.

Now Income in 2013 was circa the 612bn mark. You have the interest rate, why not try and see what figure for projected in come you get. Admitedly this is based upon today's income, and as the workforce expands and tax credit increases, you may well get a higher figure. So weight it upwards.

This is why UKIP would bring in a points based immigration system similar to the Australian model that allows the best and the brightest to come here, those that are needed and can contribute the most to society and the exchequer. This system would also make all applicants equal no matter where they apply from in the world, as opposed to the current system that allows predominately white Europeans free entry into the UK but has a different set of rules for the rest of the world the majority of whom are not white.

As above, the tax credits still out current immigration levels, so tax will certainly out strip UKIPs wanted immigration levels.

Now, whether or not you think that immigration is the key to increasing the income is a different conversastion. YOu may well decide that you want to increase income tax for the existing a great deal (of course that still doesn't cope with the dangerous imblanace between the growing aging population and our working level employees).

As for the second part, its very nice of UKIP to support the minority application. That is if its anything other than a pleasant soundbite for the overal reduction in immigration, which, lets face it, it is
If we allow the current immigration waves to continue what do we do when every square metre of the country is covered by houses built to accommodate these people and their offspring.

UKIP are not saying that we don't need immigrants, what we are saying is that we need those that have the skills Britain needs, those that can contribute to the Exchequer and that the numbers must be controlled by laws created and voted for in our own parliament not created for us by unelected commissioners in in Brussels.

That may be, but UKIP, like most political parties have the economic nouse of an aubergine. I work with exellent economists who are a lot more competent (I'd wager) than most political economists. They are significantly worried about the prospect of both a) government liabilities and b) exiting the EU.

Now that isn't to say other opinions are welcome, but on our weekly round up calls the concern is pronounced. And I know who I would trust, because their vested interests do not lie along side those of political parties; whose incentive structures are about appeasing a politically inactive public through popular opinion and saying the right thing.

RIB mate i trust you on these matters more than any politician. And even though i have studied Economics albeit many years ago you lose me at times :))


Has any study been done on the loss of foreign students to the UK education market?

 

[roaminblue]

RIB mate i trust you on these matters more than any politician. And even though i have studied Economics albeit many years ago you lose me at times :))


Has any study been done on the loss of foreign students to the UK education market?

hahaha, I wouldn't mate! I'm just a guy passing on what I've learned (after a few pints on a sunday afternoon). Opinion is key, of course, and the lens through which we view the world

I'm not aware of any studies on that subject, though it would be an interesting topic to cover. That said, I'm really badly placed to have a view on this. My university was predominantly international at master's level. It certainly felt as though the fees weren't putting them off, at least.

In terms of the immigration issue, I think less foreign students are able to find work here; however studying at a well known institution definitely makes them more competitive. A german student from my university may not be able to find occupation here, but they will be tripping over interview offers from germany. So its swings and round abouts.

I would say that I think we are losing more of the talent back to their own countries, however. Where we used to retain them, I think they are going back a little more frequently now.

 

[Rascal]

RIB mate i trust you on these matters more than any politician. And even though i have studied Economics albeit many years ago you lose me at times :))


Has any study been done on the loss of foreign students to the UK education market?

hahaha, I wouldn't mate! I'm just a guy passing on what I've learned (after a few pints on a sunday afternoon). Opinion is key, of course, and the lens through which we view the world

I'm not aware of any studies on that subject, though it would be an interesting topic to cover. That said, I'm really badly placed to have a view on this. My university was predominantly international at master's level. It certainly felt as though the fees weren't putting them off, at least.

In terms of the immigration issue, I think less foreign students are able to find work here; however studying at a well known institution definitely makes them more competitive. A german student from my university may not be able to find occupation here, but they will be tripping over interview offers from germany. So its swings and round abouts.

I would say that I think we are losing more of the talent back to their own countries, however. Where we used to retain them, I think they are going back a little more frequently now.

I was thinking in terms of Economic impact on our institutions. Foreign students pay top dollar to study so must help fund our education system for the benefit of all. Would a an arbitary limit on immigration affect our University funding?

 

[adrian99]

We don't need immigration at the levels we see today and certainly not uncontrolled unskilled immigration.

who says? UKIP? Tories? Labour? If so, they're lying to you.

Let me offer a bit of perspective here. Future, unfunded, government liabilities are currently projected to be £5 trillion. The unfunded is key. This comes directly from current workers to pay for retiring workers. The liabilities for state pension, discounted back, stands at 263% of british gdp.

Now bear in mind, this calculation is based upon a discount rate of 3%, some economists believe a true discount rate is closer to 1%. Want to know what that makes the liabilities? A huge one. MAkes them grow exponentially.

Now Income in 2013 was circa the 612bn mark. You have the interest rate, why not try and see what figure for projected in come you get. Admitedly this is based upon today's income, and as the workforce expands and tax credit increases, you may well get a higher figure. So weight it upwards.

This is why UKIP would bring in a points based immigration system similar to the Australian model that allows the best and the brightest to come here, those that are needed and can contribute the most to society and the exchequer. This system would also make all applicants equal no matter where they apply from in the world, as opposed to the current system that allows predominately white Europeans free entry into the UK but has a different set of rules for the rest of the world the majority of whom are not white.

As above, the tax credits still out current immigration levels, so tax will certainly out strip UKIPs wanted immigration levels.

Now, whether or not you think that immigration is the key to increasing the income is a different conversastion. YOu may well decide that you want to increase income tax for the existing a great deal (of course that still doesn't cope with the dangerous imblanace between the growing aging population and our working level employees).

As for the second part, its very nice of UKIP to support the minority application. That is if its anything other than a pleasant soundbite for the overal reduction in immigration, which, lets face it, it is
If we allow the current immigration waves to continue what do we do when every square metre of the country is covered by houses built to accommodate these people and their offspring.

UKIP are not saying that we don't need immigrants, what we are saying is that we need those that have the skills Britain needs, those that can contribute to the Exchequer and that the numbers must be controlled by laws created and voted for in our own parliament not created for us by unelected commissioners in in Brussels.

That may be, but UKIP, like most political parties have the economic nouse of an aubergine. I work with exellent economists who are a lot more competent (I'd wager) than most political economists. They are significantly worried about the prospect of both a) government liabilities and b) exiting the EU.

Now that isn't to say other opinions are welcome, but on our weekly round up calls the concern is pronounced. And I know who I would trust, because their vested interests do not lie along side those of political parties; whose incentive structures are about appeasing a politically inactive public through popular opinion and saying the right thing.

RIB mate i trust you on these matters more than any politician. And even though i have studied Economics albeit many years ago you lose me at times :))


Has any study been done on the loss of foreign students to the UK education market?

"UKIP, like most political parties have the economic nous of an aubergine".

There you go, arrogance, you and people of your ilk know better than the rest of us. Of course I am aware of the unfunded pension deficit but we can't keep kicking the can down the road until we are so full there is literally no room to swing a cat, the country is only so big, anyone entering must be needed and skilled. Nigel said on the Andrew Marr show this morning that some things are more important than a few pips on GDP and this is one of them, I get it, we are going to be poorer in the future, the days of continued greater wealth are over and we are going to have to work later into old age, many difficult decisions will have to be made.

As for economists, did you all see the financial crash coming? If you did you kept very quite about it. There are many economists with many different views but politics is more important than the opinions of one group of economists or those of self serving big businesses for that matter.

£5bn the cost tax credits to European migrants, £6-9 billion the cost of educating 1m children in our schools, the children of immigrants, £17.6bn the cost of free NHS treatment for the 8m immigrants living here. £10bn the cost of EU membership and £11bn the foreign aid budget. There are many things we can do to reduce spending in order to fund the state pension that today costs £80bn.

It is interesting that we are debating pensions when the conservatives are kicking the under 21's again, taking away their benefits. The under 21's who were not responsible for electing Labour who took NHS spending from £34bn to £104bn increasing pay and as a result public sector pension costs. The under 21's who were not responsible for the financial crash, the under 21's who can look forward to a future where for the first time in many generations they will be poorer than their parents. I would rather look for tangible savings that affect those from overseas not the young who bear the least responsibility for the difficulties our country is presented with today.

I am confident Steven Woolfe who presented UKIP's immigration policy is bright enough to see the issues we all face, we have more than a few bright people within the ranks of UKIP.

 

[mancityvstoke]

I always thought they were the sleepy party

 

[hackneyslim]

I always thought they were the sleepy party

"... our people ... we ... us ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz."

Alternatively, they might be called a bunch of deceitful, hate-filled pseudo-fascists.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

The only good thing I can see about UKIP , is that they are going to split the Tory vote , much as they are currently splitting the Tory party itself.

 

[Ducado]

The only good thing I can see about UKIP , is that they are going to split the Tory vote , much as they are currently splitting the Tory party itself.

I think they will also split the Labour vote

 

[roaminblue]

I was thinking in terms of Economic impact on our institutions. Foreign students pay top dollar to study so must help fund our education system for the benefit of all. Would a an arbitary limit on immigration affect our University funding?

Ah right, nothing that I am aware of unfortunately.

I could answer, but I'd be guessing i'm afraid

 

[roaminblue]

"UKIP, like most political parties have the economic nous of an aubergine".

There you go, arrogance, you and people of your ilk know better than the rest of us. Of course I am aware of the unfunded pension deficit but we can't keep kicking the can down the road until we are so full there is literally no room to swing a cat, the country is only so big, anyone entering must be needed and skilled. Nigel said on the Andrew Marr show this morning that some things are more important than a few pips on GDP and this is one of them, I get it, we are going to be poorer in the future, the days of continued greater wealth are over and we are going to have to work later into old age, many difficult decisions will have to be made.

hahaha, ok fair enough. I wasn't talking about you. I was referring more to the economists that use selective data to fit a political ideological viewpoint, or a campaign. But whatever, take it however you want.

As for me and my ilk. Not sure what that means. I'm not an economist, I work with a number of economists, and my view is informed by them, and you know what. Yes. they do know more than the rest of us. Thats why its their job. They are paid to know more than the rest of us.

Second part. If you saw what I read, I never said I was particularly pro whole sale immigration, I gave a list of possible eventualities that were glossed over by you completely. As for Nigel's comments. Read again the figures. Please. This is more than a few pips on GDP. Just do a quick calculation and have a look at the projected deficit between income and liabilities.

This isn't a case of us being poorer, this is a case of us (if immigration is stopped and the population remains as healthy as it is) having to pay more out in public pensions than we have as income.

As I said previously, though i get the impression it will be ignored, there are a number of solutions (in my mind). One is immigration, one is a tiny state with pensions provided by the private sector, and one is increasing birth rates, one is greater international political union.

Any other suggestions I'm welcome to listen. I know which one I think it will be, but I'm always prepared to be proven wrong. Seriously.

You are right, the age of retirement will increase, a lot more than it has already. Not that this is neccessarily a bad thing, it could be better for the economy. Lets hope employers see it this way as well.

As for economists, did you all see the financial crash coming? If you did you kept very quite about it. There are many economists with many different views but politics is more important than the opinions of one group of economists or those of self serving big businesses for that matter.

I'm not an economist, and I wasn't working when the financial crash occured. But to answer your question (about colleagues) a couple of them did yes. Which is why their company came through very unscathed.

For what its worth, if only for informed debate. There has been the suggestion that in terms of crisis counting, we are currently at 2003 again (of course there are a lot of factors that aren't the same back then) but we are not structurally robust enough to make it inconceiveable that we won't find ourselves in another crash within the next 15 years.

£5bn the cost tax credits to European migrants, £6-9 billion the cost of educating 1m children in our schools, the children of immigrants, £17.6bn the cost of free NHS treatment for the 8m immigrants living here. £10bn the cost of EU membership and £11bn the foreign aid budget. There are many things we can do to reduce spending in order to fund the state pension that today costs £80bn.

Thats all well and good. All the recent studies show migrants have a net positive impact, again, ONS is your friend. Secondly, quote that £80bn figure again, and look at the projection. Tell me this deficit can be solved by simply increasing the working age?