Bolitics UKIP Nutters

[bickster]

The whole EU thing shouldn't just be about in or out as with everything there is another way but that way is more difficult to navigate / explain to the public because it is more complex and requires approval across many member nations and that is the path to wholesale reform of the EU. It is undemocratic and that needs to change for sure, member states also need to decide what the EU is, is it to be a new sovereign superstate or is it to be a simple economic union, right now its an undemocratic mess caught somewhere in the middle which doesn't really do anyone any good.

I can't really see a path for reform of the EU via a referendum

[peterms]

 

 

In the case of immigration, when the facts are showing that it's a net benefit to the country but people are continually being told it's the opposite, then a referendum on "where we stand" is likely to be a measure of the relative effectiveness of propaganda, not a path to a rational policy.

 

 

I still not entirely convinced by the net benefit. I agree with nurses and other skilled jobs, but having unskilled workers come in and do jobs for minimum wage or below does not help us long-term, especially when we have a massive unemployment problem.

 

 

This article sets out some of the economic issues, which as it says, tend to be more about facts than do the social and cultural issues, which are more about perceptions and feelings.  There's more detailed stuff available from places like NIESR and IPPR.

 

Overall, it's a net benefit.  Of course that doesn't mean that in every single instance it's a benefit, and there will be examples where it's not.  It seems the most negative effects are at the bottom of the labour market, especially where employers act illegally and use migrant workers to drag down wages, falsifying records in the process.  But the problem there is employers' conduct, not the fact of immigration.

 

What seems to happen is that we get one or two anecdotal examples where bad things are happening, which then get reported far and wide as though they are a fair representation of the whole.  It's pretty shabby, and it's done to suit a political agenda.  But it plays into the hands of the racists, and it means they get more of a hearing from people who aren't racist than they otherwise would.

[PaulC]

Hmmm, a very unbiased article by a labour party activist and stood as a labour candidate in a local election as well as writing freelance for many left wing blogs etc.

[Risso]

You expected anything else?

[peterms]

Hmmm, a very unbiased article by a labour party activist and stood as a labour candidate in a local election as well as writing freelance for many left wing blogs etc.

 

The article references evidence - it's not "this is my opinion, unsupported by anything else".

 

Do you find the evidence flawed?

 

Are you more convinced by other arguments which draw on different evidence, and if so, which?

 

Hopefully you haven't simply dismissed the argument because you don't like the person putting it forward.

[snowychap]

Hmmm, a very unbiased article by a labour party activist and stood as a labour candidate in a local election as well as writing freelance for many left wing blogs etc.

Referencing work done by research bodies, no? Edited May 6, 2013 by snowychap

[peterms]

Hmmm, a very unbiased article by a labour party activist and stood as a labour candidate in a local election as well as writing freelance for many left wing blogs etc.

By the way, he's been an intern with the Conservative Party and has voted Labour, LibDem, and Tory, so you shouldn't try to present him as a party hack...

[PaulC]

 

Hmmm, a very unbiased article by a labour party activist and stood as a labour candidate in a local election as well as writing freelance for many left wing blogs etc.

 

The article references evidence - it's not "this is my opinion, unsupported by anything else".

 

Do you find the evidence flawed?

 

Are you more convinced by other arguments which draw on different evidence, and if so, which?

 

Hopefully you haven't simply dismissed the argument because you don't like the person putting it forward.

 

 

 

 

Hmmm, a very unbiased article by a labour party activist and stood as a labour candidate in a local election as well as writing freelance for many left wing blogs etc.

 

The article references evidence - it's not "this is my opinion, unsupported by anything else".

 

Do you find the evidence flawed?

 

Are you more convinced by other arguments which draw on different evidence, and if so, which?

 

Hopefully you haven't simply dismissed the argument because you don't like the person putting it forward.

 

 

"The greatest wage effects are found for low-waged workers. Each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers."   So there's flaw in his argument for starters

[peterms]

You expected anything else?

You want to get that knee seen to.

[PaulC]

 

Hmmm, a very unbiased article by a labour party activist and stood as a labour candidate in a local election as well as writing freelance for many left wing blogs etc.

By the way, he's been an intern with the Conservative Party and has voted Labour, LibDem, and Tory, so you shouldn't try to present him as a party hack...

 

 

must be bipolar then

[peterms]

"The greatest wage effects are found for low-waged workers. Each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers."   So there's flaw in his argument for starters

You're quoting a point made in his own article as evidence against his argument? Seriously? He's included that precisely because he's not trying to make a slanted argument that every single effect from immigration is unambiguously positive. He is pointing readers towards evidence which goes the other way. But you see it as "a flaw" in his argument? You seem to be imagining his argument to be something other than what he's actually saying. Something one-sided and blind to counter-evidence. That's not what he's putting forward at all. It may however be what you were expecting to find?

[PaulC]

 

"The greatest wage effects are found for low-waged workers. Each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers."   So there's flaw in his argument for starters

You're quoting a point made in his own article as evidence against his argument? Seriously? He's included that precisely because he's not trying to make a slanted argument that every single effect from immigration is unambiguously positive. He is pointing readers towards evidence which goes the other way. But you see it as "a flaw" in his argument? You seem to be imagining his argument to be something other than what he's actually saying. Something one-sided and blind to counter-evidence. That's not what he's putting forward at all. It may however be what you were expecting to find?

 

 

Yes you are right his points are very well presented, however with regard to youth unemployment its accepted that the most significant rise came during the recession 2008/9 at a time when the amount of eastern Europeans entering the country fell however it still adds to the problem  of youth unemployment in this country. Taking away the jobs in the health service, how many of these minimum wage jobs are eastern European taking that could be filled by young people under 25 in our country. Don't get me wrong I have nothing whatsoever against Polish people but we have to look after our own youth.

[villaajax]

It's now the 7th May, the election is exactly 2 years away.

[PaulC]

2 years too long

[villaajax]

2 years too long

 

At least we're over half way through this nightmare I guess

[snowychap]

Yes you are right his points are very well presented, however with regard to youth unemployment its accepted that the most significant rise came during the recession 2008/9 at a time when the amount of eastern Europeans entering the country fell ...

The quote from Portes reproduced in that article says, "During that period, the number of Eastern European workers actually fell."

Why have you changed that to the amount of eastern Europeans entering the country fell?

Also, you just repeat an assertion (that 'it still adds to the problem of youth unemployment') to contradict the conclusion of something evidence based.

You may well be right and Portes (and the NIESR research and conclusion) may well be wrong but you have to shoot that down with evidence not just supposition.

[PaulC]

 

Yes you are right his points are very well presented, however with regard to youth unemployment its accepted that the most significant rise came during the recession 2008/9 at a time when the amount of eastern Europeans entering the country fell ...

The quote from Portes reproduced in that article says, "During that period, the number of Eastern European workers actually fell."

Why have you changed that to the amount of eastern Europeans entering the country fell?

Also, you just repeat an assertion (that 'it still adds to the problem of youth unemployment') to contradict the conclusion of something evidence based.

You may well be right and Portes (and the NIESR research and conclusion) may well be wrong but you have to shoot that down with evidence not just supposition.

 

 

Just tired I guess

[peterms]

 

 

"The greatest wage effects are found for low-waged workers. Each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers."   So there's flaw in his argument for starters

You're quoting a point made in his own article as evidence against his argument? Seriously? He's included that precisely because he's not trying to make a slanted argument that every single effect from immigration is unambiguously positive. He is pointing readers towards evidence which goes the other way. But you see it as "a flaw" in his argument? You seem to be imagining his argument to be something other than what he's actually saying. Something one-sided and blind to counter-evidence. That's not what he's putting forward at all. It may however be what you were expecting to find?

 

 

Yes you are right his points are very well presented, however with regard to youth unemployment its accepted that the most significant rise came during the recession 2008/9 at a time when the amount of eastern Europeans entering the country fell however it still adds to the problem  of youth unemployment in this country. Taking away the jobs in the health service, how many of these minimum wage jobs are eastern European taking that could be filled by young people under 25 in our country. Don't get me wrong I have nothing whatsoever against Polish people but we have to look after our own youth.

 

You seem to be starting from the point of view that there's a finite amount of jobs, and if someone comes in to the country and takes one, that's one less for someone else.  But someone coming into the country also creates a requirement for jobs, because they need to be fed, housed, transported, policed, governed, educated, clothed, entertained. 

 

In fact, it's quite striking that the arguments of the anti-immigrant lobby fully recognise these "demands", without also recognising that jobs are created as a result.  Very strange, as though every aspect of economic activity is a pie of a fixed size, and a bit for him must mean less for me.  I can understand small children thinking that way, but it seems to affect people writing for national newspapers.  If there were no immigrants, there would be less people competing for jobs, and also less jobs.

 

And so people try to work out the net cost or benefit, weighing the various things against each other.  There are costs, there are benefits, and it's not immediately obvious which is greater - especially to people who don't have some method for working it out, but just rely on instinct (or "prejudice", as we can also call it).

 

This study seems broadly in line with others I've seen.  It looks specifically at Eastern European migrants, and finds that on balance they provide a net benefit - ie we'd be worse off if they weren't here.

 

I'm not arguing that all forms of immigration must everywhere be good for the host nation.  It will depend on who comes, what skills they bring, whether the contribution they make to the economy is more or less than what they take from it.  I don't expect the outcome would be the same if we compare, say, Polish plumbers coming to the UK, and Brit pensioners retiring to Spain.

 

This paper assesses the fiscal consequences of migration to the UK from the Central and Eastern European countries that joined the EU in May 2004 (A8 countries). We show that A8 immigrants who arrived after EU enlargement in 2004, and who have at least one year of residence – and are therefore legally eligible to claim benefits - are 60% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits, and 58% less likely to live in social housing.  Even if A8 immigrants had the samedemographic characteristics of natives, they would stillbe 13% less likely to receive benefits and 28% less likely to live in social housing. We thencompare the net fiscal contribution of A8 immigrants with that of individuals born in the UK,and find that in each fiscal year since enlargement in 2004, A8 immigrants made a positivecontribution to public finance despite the fact that the UK has been running a budget deficitover the last years. This is because they have a higher labour force participation rate, payproportionately more in indirect taxes, and make much lower use of benefits and publicservices.

 

 

[Daniel1Avfc]

 

 

If you want to be bombed by islam extremist then vote labour    

Oooh I love this game!

 

If you want to be bombed by an Irish republican, vote Tory!

 

...wheres that face palm pic? We might need a few.

 

 

If you want those immigrants coming over here with their metric system and measurements, stealing the jobs of our imperial system, vote Labour!

 

No, the reality is most people come here to sponge from our lefty system, breed like rats, then raise their 100 kids on the free benefits, free education, free health care so on...

[Daniel1Avfc]

 

If you want to be bombed by islam extremists then vote labour    

 

Were you a candidate for Smethwick in the 1964 general election?

 

The only doughnuts stupid enough to vote for labour are immigrants and lefties without an active brain cell. 

 

The consequences of labour getting back in (to fist the country up the arse some more) will be devastating.