The EU referendum - IN / OUT or Shake it all about.

[Alf Bentley]

To those who do support the open door immigration policy and without resorting to silly comments about benefits etc....

 

How long do you actually think the country can sustain a net migration level of over 300,000+ a year for?

 

I'm genuinely interested in what the consensus is.

 

I don't support an open door immigration policy (who does?), but it's a good question.

 

Dodgy Bob (is that you, Moose?!) has given a good answer re. the ECONOMIC sustainability of such net migration levels. Economically it's perfectly sustainable as migrants pay more in tax than they cost in services and benefits but, as Dodgy says, we'll probably have continuous problems with infrastructure and public services due to our inadequacies of planning and investment....continuously "just getting by" with the odd disaster.

 

The big question is the SOCIAL sustainability of high net immigration. I think that will depend greatly on 3 issues: (a) living standards/contentment of the native population; (b) quality of infrastructure planning and provision of public services; © The degree of social integration of immigrant populations (don't need to "become English", there just needs to be plenty of contact and understanding, not separate immigrant areas of town).

 

If most people feel reasonably content and prosperous, there's a fair bit of integration and we greatly improve our infrastructure planning and investment in public services, it could be socially sustainable for quite a long time. On the other hand, if lots of natives are unhappy and feel that they have low living standards, immigrants are living separately and we continue to fail to provide adequate housing, transport facilities, health services, education and training, then it won't be SOCIALLY sustainable for very long at all. I'd expect to see all sorts of social chaos and conflict by 2020, if not sooner. 

 

But see below....

 

 

Working from home, I have little experience of workplace demographics, but Mrs Buce does; she works as a mental health nurse, and she tells me that the majority of the 'support workers' (a euphemism for unskilled care-workers) are from Africa. Don't get me wrong, it's a horrible job and there's no suggestion that they under-perform, but they can't be described as 'quality' immigrants.

 

I'm home-based, too, but have had an awful lot of contact with the health and care services over the last 18 months. My Dad's 2 main carers (both outstanding) are Tanzanian and Liberian. His other carers have ranged from adequate to decent and have been Ghanaian, Nigerian and Greek. His GP is Anglo-Greek and his specialist has a Polish name but sounds English. The nurses who cared for my Mum before she died were mainly African or Filipino. A couple of the junior doctors were English, one Irish. The stroppy, stressed consultant involved in investigating her death was a Jew (with a slight European accent); . the ward sister who provided excellent explanations of her final care was African. The consultant who oversaw my operation on Monday was Anglo-Indian, I think; the junior doctor sounded central European. The radiologist was Irish, I think. A couple of nurses were English and a couple African. Our excellent plumber and electrician are Serbian Croats.

 

Some of those people have high skills levels. The care workers less so, possibly only in-work training (but not unskilled) but the main ones have a lot of dedication and genuine care. They're certainly "in demand", if not "quality" immigrants. That even applies to casual agricultural/food-processing gangs in Lincolnshire etc. If all the East European spud pickers went home, would there be an adequate supply of natives to replace them?

 

People who want to reduce net immigration flows need to explain why such a high proportion of these jobs are filled by migrants. Low pay/gangmasters partly explains the spud-pickers, and high-cost housing partly explains care jobs and even nursing in London, where my parents were/are treated. But I was treated in Leicester and I presume that Mrs. Buce works locally. Why do so few native English do these jobs? Do we not train enough people in such occupations? Is it just because the jobs are too low-paid, demanding and low-status for natives? If so, who would do those jobs if the immigrants were sent home? Because with an aging population, we're going to need ever MORE people doing such jobs, not FEWER.

[davieG]

I can just imagine the media headlines if a government announced it was going to build/create unused infrastructure to cope with future immigrant levels.

 

Anyway it's not going to happen any time soon even if they wanted as most infrastructure is being cut to the bone apart from vanity stuff like the High Speed Railway.

[Webbo]

The thing about immigrants being financially neutral is a bit of a myth. In my understanding it means they pay as much tax as they receive in benefits, it doesn't cover the costs schooling for their children or the cost to the NHS. It doesn't count the cost in benefits to indigenous people wages they've suppressed.

 

Lower wages are obviously good for business, and we need successful businesses but it's no good if it's making the rest of us poorer. Immigration needs to be discussed in the whole not just selective statistics that fit an agenda.

[Buce]

I don't support an open door immigration policy (who does?), but it's a good question.

Dodgy Bob (is that you, Moose?!) has given a good answer re. the ECONOMIC sustainability of such net migration levels. Economically it's perfectly sustainable as migrants pay more in tax than they cost in services and benefits but, as Dodgy says, we'll probably have continuous problems with infrastructure and public services due to our inadequacies of planning and investment....continuously "just getting by" with the odd disaster.

The big question is the SOCIAL sustainability of high net immigration. I think that will depend greatly on 3 issues: (a) living standards/contentment of the native population; (b) quality of infrastructure planning and provision of public services; © The degree of social integration of immigrant populations (don't need to "become English", there just needs to be plenty of contact and understanding, not separate immigrant areas of town).

If most people feel reasonably content and prosperous, there's a fair bit of integration and we greatly improve our infrastructure planning and investment in public services, it could be socially sustainable for quite a long time. On the other hand, if lots of natives are unhappy and feel that they have low living standards, immigrants are living separately and we continue to fail to provide adequate housing, transport facilities, health services, education and training, then it won't be SOCIALLY sustainable for very long at all. I'd expect to see all sorts of social chaos and conflict by 2020, if not sooner.

But see below....

I'm home-based, too, but have had an awful lot of contact with the health and care services over the last 18 months. My Dad's 2 main carers (both outstanding) are Tanzanian and Liberian. His other carers have ranged from adequate to decent and have been Ghanaian, Nigerian and Greek. His GP is Anglo-Greek and his specialist has a Polish name but sounds English. The nurses who cared for my Mum before she died were mainly African or Filipino. A couple of the junior doctors were English, one Irish. The stroppy, stressed consultant involved in investigating her death was a Jew (with a slight European accent); . the ward sister who provided excellent explanations of her final care was African. The consultant who oversaw my operation on Monday was Anglo-Indian, I think; the junior doctor sounded central European. The radiologist was Irish, I think. A couple of nurses were English and a couple African. Our excellent plumber and electrician are Serbian Croats.

Some of those people have high skills levels. The care workers less so, possibly only in-work training (but not unskilled) but the main ones have a lot of dedication and genuine care. They're certainly "in demand", if not "quality" immigrants. That even applies to casual agricultural/food-processing gangs in Lincolnshire etc. If all the East European spud pickers went home, would there be an adequate supply of natives to replace them?

People who want to reduce net immigration flows need to explain why such a high proportion of these jobs are filled by migrants. Low pay/gangmasters partly explains the spud-pickers, and high-cost housing partly explains care jobs and even nursing in London, where my parents were/are treated. But I was treated in Leicester and I presume that Mrs. Buce works locally. Why do so few native English do these jobs? Do we not train enough people in such occupations? Is it just because the jobs are too low-paid, demanding and low-status for natives? If so, who would do those jobs if the immigrants were sent home? Because with an aging population, we're going to need ever MORE people doing such jobs, not FEWER.

I would think that all of those things have some relevance, generally. Specifically, Mrs B's employer actively recruits low-skilled Africans because they are more compliant. They tend not to complain over shoddy (and/or illegal) workplace practices, have no interest in Unions, and work whatever shifts they are given, even when the hours are illegal. In short, they are happy to be exploited in a way that natives long since refused to be. You might even say that they are undermining years of hard-won workers rights.

I'm concerned that I'm coming across as anti-immigration here. That's not the case, and all of those specialists that you listed clearly enhance our society, but I am against the immigration of low/unskilled workers who undermine worker's rights and drive down wages.

I might also add that most of the Africans that work with Mrs B send home most of their disposable income, so I don't see that they stimulate the economy in the same way as a native worker, but they do provide an identical burden on infrastructure.

Of course it's Moose, Alf - what took you so long?

[Strokes]

A question for those supporting the 'Leave' campaign:

The central plank of the arguement appears to be that we need to leave the EU if we want to control immigration. Yet, of the immigration figures released today, more than half came from non-EU countries. It seems to me that we already have the ability to cut immigration from those countries, just not the political will.

What is the point of voting to leave, given that?

It's not less immigrants we need, it's less unskilled immigrants. those coming in on visa's presumably meet a certain criteria.

[Alf Bentley]

The thing about immigrants being financially neutral is a bit of a myth. In my understanding it means they pay as much tax as they receive in benefits, it doesn't cover the costs schooling for their children or the cost to the NHS. It doesn't count the cost in benefits to indigenous people wages they've suppressed.

 

Lower wages are obviously good for business, and we need successful businesses but it's no good if it's making the rest of us poorer. Immigration needs to be discussed in the whole not just selective statistics that fit an agenda.

 

 

I'm not going to get into an extended debate about immigration, but would be interested to see a source for that claim.

 

Here's the FT: https://next.ft.com/content/c49043a8-6447-11e4-b219-00144feabdc0

"European immigrants to the UK paid much more in taxes than they received in benefits over the past decade, making a net fiscal contribution of £20bn, say researchers. The arguments look set to intensify now UCL researchers have established that so-called “A10 migrants” from eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 contributed nearly £5bn to the UK in the decade to 2011. Those from the original 15 EU members brought a net gain of £15bn over the same period. By comparison, the UK-born population was a net cost"

 

Admittedly, the net contribution of non-EU immigrants is lower - though not as low as UK natives (see graph in article).

 

It doesn't cover school/NHS costs, but those would probably be lower than natives as migrants are mainly of working age, so less likely to be ill - and many have no dependents or leave families at home, sending money back instead.

 

On the other hand, the article states: "Prof Dustmann said Britain was a “special case” because it tended to attract far more skilled immigrants than other EU countries. A previous study has found that Polish immigrants to the UK had much higher levels of education than those in Germany. UCL researchers estimated that European immigrants had provided “productive human capital” that would have cost the UK government £6.8bn in education spending in the decade to 2011". So, as well as accounting for schooling costs, you'd have to allow for £6.8bn of education BENEFITS to the UK provided by their native countries educating those workers.

[Alf Bentley]

It's not less immigrants we need, it's less unskilled immigrants. those coming in on visa's presumably meet a certain criteria.

 

 

How do you square that claim with the article I've just posted stating that non-EU immigrants make a LOWER net fiscal contribution than EU immigrants (though not as low as UK nationals)?

 

How do you square it with the accounts given by Buce and myself of large numbers of Africans working as relatively unskilled care workers?

 

How do you square it with the fact that at lot of nurses are Africans, Filipinos etc.? Nursing is a skilled job requiring training, obviously, but not one that would be beyond large proportions of our native population.....

Why are so many nurses from abroad? Is it due to (comparatively) low pay? Inadequate training? Lack of interest among Brits?

[Alf Bentley]

I would think that all of those things have some relevance, generally. Specifically, Mrs B's employer actively recruits low-skilled Africans because they are more compliant. They tend not to complain over shoddy (and/or illegal) workplace practices, have no interest in Unions, and work whatever shifts they are given, even when the hours are illegal. In short, they are happy to be exploited in a way that natives long since refused to be. You might even say that they are undermining years of hard-won workers rights.

I'm concerned that I'm coming across as anti-immigration here. That's not the case, and all of those specialists that you listed clearly enhance our society, but I am against the immigration of low/unskilled workers who undermine worker's rights and drive down wages.

I might also add that most of the Africans that work with Mrs B send home most of their disposable income, so I don't see that they stimulate the economy in the same way as a native worker, but they do provide an identical burden on infrastructure.

Of course it's Moose, Alf - what took you so long?

 

I'm sure there's some truth in what you say about cheaper, more compliant foreign labour....though that's presumably nothing to do with the EU if they are Africans. I'd be interested to hear an alternative from those who want a drastic cut in such low-skilled immigration. Would they attract Brits to such jobs by raising pay, improving regulation and increasing unionisation? That would cost even more - often to the public purse. Or would they try to force natives to take crap care jobs on long hours, low pay and poor conditions?

 

That doesn't cover nurses, either, does it? That's a unionised, regulated profession. They don't earn megabucks but the pay isn't THAT bad compared to shop work, service sector, low-ranking office work, some factory work. Yet a high proportion of nurses are from abroad - and often from outside the EU. Anyone care to explain that one?

 

I assumed it was Moose. I'm just hoping to elicit zero response to my comment, which will serve as confirmation of his identity! Good to have you back, Moose!  

 

If you're concerned about seeming anti-immigration, I'm concerned about seeming like some right-on fvcker, going on about all the lovely African care workers looking after my Dad (was just speaking to the Tanzanian on the phone - I'm genuinely in awe of her care and commitment). So, I'd like to point out that the social worker supposedly overseeing my Dad's care is also West African.....and she's absolutely fvcking useless!   

[Buce]

I'm sure there's some truth in what you say about cheaper, morie compliant foreign labour....though that's presumably nothing to do with the EU if they are Africans. I'd be interested to hear an alternative from those who want a drastic cut in such low-skilled immigration. Would they attract Brits to such jobs by raising pay, improving regulation and increasing unionisation? That would cost even more - often to oothe public purse. Or would they try to force natives to take crap care jobs on long hours, low pay and poor conditions?

Surely the law of supply and demand would ensure that wages and working conditions would improve to its natural level? A surplus of labour suits the bosses, not the workforce.

That doesn't cover nurses, either, does it? That's a unionised, regulated profession. They don't earn megabucks but the pay isn't THAT bad compared to shop work, service sector, low-ranking office work, some factory work. Yet a high proportion of nurses are from abroad - and often from outside the EU. Anyone care to explain that one?

No, it doesn't. But trained nurses are not the unskilled workers that we were discussing. The care workers in questions have to have no skills other than those provided by mandatory Health & Safety training (moving and handling, for example).

I assumed it was Moose. I'm just hoping to elicit zero response to my comment, which will serve as confirmation of his identity! Good to have you back, Moose!

I rather like the handle of 'Dodgy Moose'

If you're concerned about seeming anti-immigration, I'm concerned about seeming like some right-on fvcker, going on about all the lovely African care workers looking after my Dad (was just speaking to the Tanzanian on the phone - I'm genuinely in awe of her care and commitment). So, I'd like to point out that the social worker supposedly overseeing my Dad's care is also West African.....and she's absolutely fvcking useless!

I'm sure you're a well-read man, Alf, so I'll assume you're familiar with The Grapes Of Wrath.

With a little poetic licence, I see parallels with this situation.

If you substitute the Mid-West dustbowls with the 'Third World', the 'Okies' with (in this case) Afiricans, California with the UK, you have a similar scenario - an inexhaustable supply of desperate humanity, willing to work for increasingly lower wages and poorer conditions, while at the same time placing an unsustainable burden on the local infastructure.

[Strokes]

How do you square that claim with the article I've just posted stating that non-EU immigrants make a LOWER net fiscal contribution than EU immigrants (though not as low as UK nationals)?

 

How do you square it with the accounts given by Buce and myself of large numbers of Africans working as relatively unskilled care workers?

 

How do you square it with the fact that at lot of nurses are Africans, Filipinos etc.? Nursing is a skilled job requiring training, obviously, but not one that would be beyond large proportions of our native population.....

Why are so many nurses from abroad? Is it due to (comparatively) low pay? Inadequate training? Lack of interest among Brits?

Nursing it's the training I think, also lot of British nurses by the time of qualification are ready to start families and then require part time hours.

I square it because I'm not calling unskilled immigrants a negative for the economy my problem is the relative gain we make economically is not equal to the social impact and strain on services. Also we have plenty of people currently on benefits looking for work, that could fill these positions. When we have unlimited labour for industry and business, we see lower wages and poorer conditions for workers. There is less need for companies to train and invest in current workforces that are replaceable at a moments notice and wages suffer too.

[Strokes]

If all these big businesses are in support of EU, maybe we should have an EU tax. One that falls inline with corporation tax, so they can pick up the membership tab instead of the people who gain very little from it.

[Webbo]

I'm not going to get into an extended debate about immigration, but would be interested to see a source for that claim.

 

Here's the FT: https://next.ft.com/content/c49043a8-6447-11e4-b219-00144feabdc0

"European immigrants to the UK paid much more in taxes than they received in benefits over the past decade, making a net fiscal contribution of £20bn, say researchers. The arguments look set to intensify now UCL researchers have established that so-called “A10 migrants” from eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 contributed nearly £5bn to the UK in the decade to 2011. Those from the original 15 EU members brought a net gain of £15bn over the same period. By comparison, the UK-born population was a net cost"

 

Admittedly, the net contribution of non-EU immigrants is lower - though not as low as UK natives (see graph in article).

 

It doesn't cover school/NHS costs, but those would probably be lower than natives as migrants are mainly of working age, so less likely to be ill - and many have no dependents or leave families at home, sending money back instead.

 

On the other hand, the article states: "Prof Dustmann said Britain was a “special case” because it tended to attract far more skilled immigrants than other EU countries. A previous study has found that Polish immigrants to the UK had much higher levels of education than those in Germany. UCL researchers estimated that European immigrants had provided “productive human capital” that would have cost the UK government £6.8bn in education spending in the decade to 2011". So, as well as accounting for schooling costs, you'd have to allow for £6.8bn of education BENEFITS to the UK provided by their native countries educating those workers.

I can't read the article because it's behind a paywall but there seems to be a few qualifications in there.

 Those from the original 15 EU members brought a net gain of £15bn over the same period. By comparison, the UK-born population was a net cost"

 

Why just the original 15 countries and not the EU as a whole when most of the immigration comes from the eastern members of the EU?

It doesn't cover school/NHS costs, but those would probably be lower than natives as migrants are mainly of working age, so less likely to be ill - and many have no dependents or leave families at home, sending money back instead.

 

Working on an assumption and therefore discounting any cost at all. There are immigrant workers here with dependants and in need of medical treatment, there are some costs.

 

It also doesn't mention the cost in benefits to people already here in benefits from their suppressed wages.

 

 I'm not disparaging any races I just think we need an honest debate, with all the facts without the fear of appearing racist.

[johnny the fox]

A question for those supporting the 'Leave' campaign:

The central plank of the arguement appears to be that we need to leave the EU if we want to control immigration. Yet, of the immigration figures released today, more than half came from non-EU countries. It seems to me that we already have the ability to cut immigration from those countries, just not the political will.

What is the point of voting to leave, given that?

The "central plank" is NOT immigration...that is a symptom...  its about democracy and self government..who makes the decisions about YOUR life today...this country invented parliamentary democracy ..WE can get rid of the people we voted for if they fail to do the job...countless numbers of Brits into the millions have laid down their lives for this concept.. its called freedom.The vast majority of future decisions and laws are going to be made by nameless faceless people we know nothing about.....  If you want to be just a small part of a united states of Europe good for you...I don't ...we have governed our selves for thousands of years...I don't think we have done a bad job up to now......TRUST THE PEOPLE ...

[davieG]

Even  if they are paying tax it takes years for that to filter through sufficiently to provide the additional infrastructure, health and social support especially during a time of serious cutbacks to them.

 

Bear in mind also that there is an ever increasing burden and cost either via our own or EU legislation to infrastructure, social and health requirements

[Alf Bentley]

 

I'm sure there's some truth in what you say about cheaper, morie compliant foreign labour....though that's presumably nothing to do with the EU if they are Africans. I'd be interested to hear an alternative from those who want a drastic cut in such low-skilled immigration. Would they attract Brits to such jobs by raising pay, improving regulation and increasing unionisation? That would cost even more - often to the public purse. Or would they try to force natives to take crap care jobs on long hours, low pay and poor conditions?

Surely the law of supply and demand would ensure that wages and working conditions would improve to its natural level? A surplus of labour suits the bosses, not the workforce.

That doesn't cover nurses, either, does it? That's a unionised, regulated profession. They don't earn megabucks but the pay isn't THAT bad compared to shop work, service sector, low-ranking office work, some factory work. Yet a high proportion of nurses are from abroad - and often from outside the EU. Anyone care to explain that one?

No, it doesn't. But trained nurses are not the unskilled workers that we were discussing. The care workers in questions have to have no skills other than those provided by mandatory Health & Safety training (moving and handling, for example).

I assumed it was Moose. I'm just hoping to elicit zero response to my comment, which will serve as confirmation of his identity! Good to have you back, Moose!

I rather like the handle of 'Dodgey Moose'

If you're concerned about seeming anti-immigration, I'm concerned about seeming like some right-on fvcker, going on about all the lovely African care workers looking after my Dad (was just speaking to the Tanzanian on the phone - I'm genuinely in awe of her care and commitment). So, I'd like to point out that the social worker supposedly overseeing my Dad's care is also West African.....and she's absolutely fvcking useless!

 

 

Your supply and demand theory assumes the buyers are able to pay. Those paying for care are either local councils, whose incomes have been slashed to the extent that they're closing care homes down, or private individuals who have the capital to pay for their care. My Dad is in the latter situation, as my parents downsized to a flat a couple of years back. So, he's having to pay £40,000+ per year for his care, until his money runs out. Even a lot of people with savings would struggle to pay £50k, £60k or £70k per year for very long. So, even more people would end up relying on council-funded care. Councils would be paying more per person and for more people, with budgets that are already inadequate. Not sure demand and supply works there. Plus, this is all assuming that a large number of Brits are prepared to do dirty work and unsociable hours for crap pay (it would still be crap pay even with a significant increase).

 

Re, nurses, my point was just that the number of foreign nurses can't be put down to cheap labour and a compliant workforce, as with care workers. I'm genuinely curious why we have so few British nurses. Would we keep foreign nurses then or try to replace them with Brits?

 

Quite agree about "Dodgy Moose". 

 

Nursing it's the training I think, also lot of British nurses by the time of qualification are ready to start families and then require part time hours.

I square it because I'm not calling unskilled immigrants a negative for the economy my problem is the relative gain we make economically is not equal to the social impact and strain on services. Also we have plenty of people currently on benefits looking for work, that could fill these positions. When we have unlimited labour for industry and business, we see lower wages and poorer conditions for workers. There is less need for companies to train and invest in current workforces that are replaceable at a moments notice and wages suffer too.

 

I wonder why foreign nurses are less put off by training, then? Foreign nurses also start families, too...and some nurses never have kids or are male or only have kids in their 30s. Might explain a bit of it, but not all the shortfall, surely?

 

I agree with some of your points, but a lot of the unskilled vacancies generated by cutting unskilled immigration would be positions like care workers in Southern England or agricultural labourers in Lincolnshire. How many of the people on benefits could fill those vacancies? Could redundant steel workers from Teesside work in Bournemouth care homes? Could parents from Leicester go and do seasonal work in the fields outside Boston? 

[Strokes]

Your supply and demand theory assumes the buyers are able to pay. Those paying for care are either local councils, whose incomes have been slashed to the extent that they're closing care homes down, or private individuals who have the capital to pay for their care. My Dad is in the latter situation, as my parents downsized to a flat a couple of years back. So, he's having to pay £40,000+ per year for his care, until his money runs out. Even a lot of people with savings would struggle to pay £50k, £60k or £70k per year for very long. So, even more people would end up relying on council-funded care. Councils would be paying more per person and for more people, with budgets that are already inadequate. Not sure demand and supply works there. Plus, this is all assuming that a large number of Brits are prepared to do dirty work and unsociable hours for crap pay (it would still be crap pay even with a significant increase).

Re, nurses, my point was just that the number of foreign nurses can't be put down to cheap labour and a compliant workforce, as with care workers. I'm genuinely curious why we have so few British nurses. Would we keep foreign nurses then or try to replace them with Brits?

Quite agree about "Dodgy Moose".

I wonder why foreign nurses are less put off by training, then? Foreign nurses also start families, too...and some nurses never have kids or are male or only have kids in their 30s. Might explain a bit of it, but not all the shortfall, surely?

I agree with some of your points, but a lot of the unskilled vacancies generated by cutting unskilled immigration would be positions like care workers in Southern England or agricultural labourers in Lincolnshire. How many of the people on benefits could fill those vacancies? Could redundant steel workers from Teesside work in Bournemouth care homes? Could parents from Leicester go and do seasonal work in the fields outside Boston?

No you're missing the point, NHS pay to train nurses at great cost and the rate in which they drop off is huge. My wife finished training 10 years ago and of her class of 18, only 5 are still practising. Non full time. An imported nurse costs very little to (classroom) train, so the benefits are pretty obvious. Why train Brits when you can get a ready to start labour whenever you want from the continent?

As per your last point, I'm not saying ban all immigrants that have no skills or education but at least stem them to encourage some stability and worth to the workforce already here. Takeaway free labour on tap, to give employees a bit more power and security, especially those in the less skilled areas. I thought those of you on the left would recognise this a bit more but I fear they are too clouded in hatred of the tories to see it.

[Alf Bentley]

I can't read the article because it's behind a paywall but there seems to be a few qualifications in there.

Why just the original 15 countries and not the EU as a whole when most of the immigration comes from the eastern members of the EU?

Working on an assumption and therefore discounting any cost at all. There are immigrant workers here with dependants and in need of medical treatment, there are some costs.

 

It also doesn't mention the cost in benefits to people already here in benefits from their suppressed wages.

 

 I'm not disparaging any races I just think we need an honest debate, with all the facts without the fear of appearing racist.

 

That article isn't behind a paywall as I've paid nothing to the FT and I can read it.

 

Anyway, I quoted the bit about Eastern Europeans. You just missed it. Here it is again (in bold): "The arguments look set to intensify now UCL researchers have established that so-called “A10 migrants” from eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 contributed nearly £5bn to the UK in the decade to 2011. Those from the original 15 EU members brought a net gain of £15bn over the same period. By comparison, the UK-born population was a net cost"

 

There's even a graph showing that West European migrants contribute most, followed by East Europeans, then non-EU migrants, with Brits bringing up the rear (sorry file extension won't allow me to copy & paste):

 

 

I don't discount all NHS/schools costs generated by migrants, I just assume (for the reasons explained) that they'd probably be lower than for native Brits, more of whom would have resident children or be elderly. Actually, re-reading the article, it sounds as if it might allow for such costs, though it's not 100% clear.

 

You've a gall criticising me for working on an assumption, anyway. Your initial post claimed "immigrants being financially neutral is a bit of a myth. In my understanding it means they pay as much tax as they receive in benefits", I've just contradicted that - with  data from a reputable source. I asked you for a source to support your claim but you've provided none, so, pending correction, I have to assume you were talking out of your arse!   

 

Your point on the cost in benefits or suppressed wages to unemployed Brits is a reasonable one, though I'm dubious about how many unemployed Brits would be prepared and capable of doing care work, seasonal agricultural work etc.

 

Your point about racism was superfluous as (a) I've never thought you were disparaging any races; (b) I completely agree that people should be able to discuss immigration without any fear of appearing racist, including concerns about how people from different cultures will get on together in communities.

[Webbo]

When I tried to look at it there was an advert in front of the article.I wasnt criticising you for making the assumption but the UCL  and the article.

 

I don't doubt there are British people who wouldn't want to do some of the work that immigrants do . My sister runs old people's homes and she'd rather employ Philipinos as they actual turn up everyday,  on time and actually do the job they're paid for. Personally I don't think unemployed people should be allowed to decide they don't want to work but thats another argument.

 

Immigrants don't just work in care homes and fruit picking. We're always being told about marvellous Polish plumbers. I've worked with Eastern Europeans on jobs and they're no harder working, they're certainly not better they just work cheaper. They're suppressing the wages of tradesmen meaning they pay less tax and they're more liable to be claiming family tax.

[Dodgy Bob]

I can't read the article because it's behind a paywall but there seems to be a few qualifications in there.

Why just the original 15 countries and not the EU as a whole when most of the immigration comes from the eastern members of the EU?

Working on an assumption and therefore discounting any cost at all. There are immigrant workers here with dependants and in need of medical treatment, there are some costs.

It also doesn't mention the cost in benefits to people already here in benefits from their suppressed wages.

I'm not disparaging any races I just think we need an honest debate, with all the facts without the fear of appearing racist.

If you Google "The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK" the first result is a pdf of the actual study referred to by the FT. In that, it appears to me that they do account for both education and NHS costs by taking the average of those costs and applying them to each immigrant, which they think is a conservative methodology because the actual additional cost is likely to be marginal and therefore lower, even before you start talking about demographics.

[Alf Bentley]

No you're missing the point, NHS pay to train nurses at great cost and the rate in which they drop off is huge. My wife finished training 10 years ago and of her class of 18, only 5 are still practising. Non full time. An imported nurse costs very little to (classroom) train, so the benefits are pretty obvious. Why train Brits when you can get a ready to start labour whenever you want from the continent?

As per your last point, I'm not saying ban all immigrants that have no skills or education but at least stem them to encourage some stability and worth to the workforce already here. Takeaway free labour on tap, to give employees a bit more power and security, especially those in the less skilled areas. I thought those of you on the left would recognise this a bit more but I fear they are too clouded in hatred of the tories to see it.

 

 

Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant by "it's the training". If your wife's figures are remotely close to typical, it should be an urgent priority to understand why so many drop off and to address that. After 10 years, presumably parenthood will be part of the equation and some will want to be full-time parents, but lots of mothers take maternity leave in other professions and return to their careers full-time, so maybe better childcare provision needs to be a focus. Maybe there needs to be more flexibility over shifts, too, or ways of reducing stress - or better pay to discourage nurses from shifting to other careers that are better-paid or cause less stress for similar pay? I'm only guessing there, so don't condemn me if I'm talking shite!

 

So, otherwise, we face a choice between accepting lots of pre-trained immigrant nurses or spending a hell of a lot more from public funds to train, recruit and retain more British nurses?

 

I quite agree with the gist of your last point. The Govt should conduct inspections of spud-picking gangs in Lincolnshire to ensure minimum pay and conditions are being met and work is being advertised to locals (I've advocated that on here before). They should increase funding to councils for social care - and should be more generous towards people funding their own care. They should improve union rights so that workers are better able to negotiate/fight for better conditions. Instead, this Tory Govt is legislating to make life more difficult for unions, it is conducting almost no inspections of agricultural labour, it is slashing funding for councils and it has reneged on its election promise to cap self-funding of care at £72,000, so that the whole care system is in danger of collapse and risks taking the NHS with it through bed-blocking of A&E by elderly people who need care that is no longer available.  If it is the security of British workers that concerns them, why have they not legislated on zero-hours contracts? 

 

This Tory Govt is quite happy to see British workers undercut by illegal labour or low pay, and to have their bargaining power weakened, because it largely exists to serve the interests of big business and the wealthy. Hence why, instead of tackling these problems, in hard times it chooses to cut tax for high-earners and to spout hot air about tax avoidance, while its leader hides his cash in Panama. I rarely feel hatred, but I do despise the immorality of the way that the Tories shaft British workers and the British public to promote the interests of capital and big business - and some, like Boris, then use immigrants as scapegoats to cynically promote their own careers. I think you're viewing the Tory attitude towards British workers through the most rose-tinted glasses ever seen. 

[Strokes]

Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant by "it's the training". If your wife's figures are remotely close to typical, it should be an urgent priority to understand why so many drop off and to address that. After 10 years, presumably parenthood will be part of the equation and some will want to be full-time parents, but lots of mothers take maternity leave in other professions and return to their careers full-time, so maybe better childcare provision needs to be a focus. Maybe there needs to be more flexibility over shifts, too, or ways of reducing stress - or better pay to discourage nurses from shifting to other careers that are better-paid or cause less stress for similar pay? I'm only guessing there, so don't condemn me if I'm talking shite!

 

So, otherwise, we face a choice between accepting lots of pre-trained immigrant nurses or spending a hell of a lot more from public funds to train, recruit and retain more British nurses?

 

I quite agree with the gist of your last point. The Govt should conduct inspections of spud-picking gangs in Lincolnshire to ensure minimum pay and conditions are being met and work is being advertised to locals (I've advocated that on here before). They should increase funding to councils for social care - and should be more generous towards people funding their own care. They should improve union rights so that workers are better able to negotiate/fight for better conditions. Instead, this Tory Govt is legislating to make life more difficult for unions, it is conducting almost no inspections of agricultural labour, it is slashing funding for councils and it has reneged on its election promise to cap self-funding of care at £72,000, so that the whole care system is in danger of collapse and risks taking the NHS with it through bed-blocking of A&E by elderly people who need care that is no longer available.  If it is the security of British workers that concerns them, why have they not legislated on zero-hours contracts? 

 

This Tory Govt is quite happy to see British workers undercut by illegal labour or low pay, and to have their bargaining power weakened, because it largely exists to serve the interests of big business and the wealthy. Hence why, instead of tackling these problems, in hard times it chooses to cut tax for high-earners and to spout hot air about tax avoidance, while its leader hides his cash in Panama. I rarely feel hatred, but I do despise the immorality of the way that the Tories shaft British workers and the British public to promote the interests of capital and big business - and some, like Boris, then use immigrants as scapegoats to cynically promote their own careers. I think you're viewing the Tory attitude towards British workers through the most rose-tinted glasses ever seen. 

On your first point, the problem with the full time job and parenthood ( I wrote motherhood originally but I don't want to offend ) is the hours and shift pattern. It's obviously not so bad in community nursing but I'm not sure community nursing gives quite the same stimulation as say, acute medical care or A and E. For both these roles, full time staff are expected to work some 14 hour shifts and night shifts. Hardly family friendly, which is to be expected. I know other wards may be a bit more accommodating but still unattractive to some.

You have me wrong if you think I am anti unions, I'm most definitely not. I do however feel that they alienate themselves with politically motivated action and language. I am bitterly disappointed with how the tories have so far performed.

I have a very similar situation to your dads going on with my grandma right now, as we have discussed previously. Care plans for stroke victims and especially in the 'elder' bracket is nothing short of disgusting. From communication to relatives, the rehabilitation (or complete lack of it), the funding, the consistency, the failed discharges, you could go on for hours. I can't keep up with the changes they keep making to her mental capacity, it's makes me so angry when all the medical stall can reach a conclusion one day and then the following day another completely different conclusion is reached with no obvious changes in health or condition

[Trav Le Bleu]

I have seen all the info provided by both sides and it seem to amount to this:

If we stay in, we all die.

If we leave, we all die.

We're screwed.

[bovril]

I have seen all the info provided by both sides and it seem to amount to this:

If we stay in, we all die.

If we leave, we all die.

We're screwed.

 

Depends if you want be wiped out in WW3 or trampled to death by 74 million marauding Turks.

[Jimothy]

Amazing how people see different things, what show(s) were you watching? The last two debates I've seen it was the remainers butting in, Chukka Umanna on Newsnight and Andrew Neil even got quite angry at Lucy Thomas for constantly doing it.

edit: As I type this Giselle Stuart launches into a constant barrage of interruption

Sorry took me a while to respond, but recent examples include Jill Kirby and Paul Marshall on Question Time a couple of weeks back. Two people being interviewed on BBC breakfast the other morning in a mill up north, where they man pretty much waited for the woman to say the first couple of words of her answer before shouting. An audience member shouting down Alec Salmond on the debate earlier tonight. Steve Hilton shouting down Caroline Lucas just now on QT. I'm not talking about people saying the odd word, I'm not talking about people trading blows, I'm talking about people shouting down the person talking until they can't be heard.

I mean Lucas just jumped in on Hilton when he stopped talking for a second, but nothing like actually shouting over him whilst he's talking until he can't be heard which is what he was doing.

Like you say people see thing differently, but I'm certainly seeing it more from the leave campaigners.

EDIT: Dreda Say Mitchell just stopped Ed Milliband in his tracks then told him off when he tried to stop her because she was talking (I've no idea if she leave or remain though, but Ed is clearly stay)

[Dr The Singh]

Watching question time, all I can say is British people are thick, nearly as thick as Americans.