2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Strokes]

It's something that has been reported for many years in many different places.

Here it is from the horse's mouth.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257236/impact-of-migration.pdf

Its quite a small study considering the numbers that it supposedly represents but it does back up the theory. However, as moose says, immigration is an additional burden, so comparing it to a native is irrelevant. It needs to be accounted for as it is.

[sphericalfox]

I was hoping you'd concede that an increase in numbers leading to an increase in demand for services, at whatever rate, is basic logic. But if you need to hear it from someone else then here you go, I could have picked any of perhaps ten thousand similar and more in depth articles over the last decade but this one is recent and from a left-leaning source.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32333911

 

One article regarding a locality does NOT represent the majority of the country. That's basic logic.

 

Where is your evidence that they are in fact less likely to use social services?

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257236/impact-of-migration.pdf

 

http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/100112_105822.pdf

[Guest]

I find it incredibly hard to understand how intelligent people can any longer question the good that young immigrants bring to a country - particularly a country that is ageing and where people don't want to do certain jobs that they feel are "beneath" them.

 

The good of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[MooseBreath]

Young British feel they have an entitlement to a house when in fact they are not even entitled to a rented property.

Get a job, earn some money and put yourself in a position to buy a house without having to worry about an increase in interest rates. If you can't do that then stay at home and live with parents and grandparents.

On top of that don't have children until you can afford them and have time for them.

Same can be said for cars/tvs/Iphones and all the other consumer goods that are sought after without being affordable in the situation you find yourself.

I don't disagree with that in principle, however to continue today's theme of making the left's argument for them, what about the people who aren't capable of earning a good wage for whatever reason, and what about the people who don't have the luxury of a convenient parental home in which to stay while saving for a deposit?

Even with the ability to save significant sums for a deposit, house prices rising above inflation, above savings rates, and above wage growth means the required deposit keeps getting further out of reach. Someone who needs £10k for a deposit today and commits to saving £2k per year finds that when they reach their goal in five years time, they then require £15k for a deposit on the same property. It ends up taking a decade or more to save just for a deposit.

[Guest Bilo]

I find it incredibly hard to understand how intelligent people can any longer question the good that young immigrants bring to a country - particularly a country that is ageing and where people don't want to do certain jobs that they feel are "beneath" them.

 

The good of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

This is exactly it.

 

The same things were said about Indian people in the 1960s, now one of the most successful communities in the UK and whose children consistently outperform white British children educationally.

 

The young Eastern European migrants, especially Polish people, are often overqualified for their jobs and will eventually climb the ladder once they've amassed a good CV in the UK, as well as mastered the language and way of life. When they do this, their contribution to the British economy becomes even greater.

 

We've had waves of migration along the same kind of pattern since the war for that reason. Migrants enter the country and do the low paid jobs, they settle here and become more acclimatised to the country and then the second/third generations of these migrants improve their lot. It happened with Jewish people fleeing the pogroms in the early twentieth century, many black people in the 1950s, Indian people in particular in the 1960s and so on. 

 

It takes time, but migration is a good thing from which the entire country benefits. Of course it has to be controlled, but the idea that immigrants are a threat to our way of life is not correct.

[MooseBreath]

One article regarding a locality does NOT represent the mcajority of the country. That's basic logic

I think any reasonable reader will comprehend the point being made, so I'll leave it at that. If you require more information, Google it yourself.

[The Doctor]

Few things:

 

1) - Why has the conversation changed to brits moving abroad?  The original question was about Thursdays debate 'Does the 300k growth of our population effect the housing crisis'  No mention of finance, no mention of if these people are cleaners or professors

 

2) The Doctor said The Invinsible is scare mongering, but it is actually an undeniable legal fact.  It is your OPINION that it is unlikely, but it is factually correct that anyone from the EU can come here, and therefore how can Bilo predict the number of houses needed

 

You'll notice I've never given an opinion of whether this is good/bad for britain or if I a pro/anti open movement of people, but this debate (Election 2015 and Foxestalk) lacks people agreeing with hard facts for some reason.

 

It is scaremongering - yes, the entire population of Romania could rock up on our doorstep and we'd have to let them in, but if you look at the immigration stats it just isn't happening. Latvians have been able to rock up and work here for a decade now, how many have actually come?

 

Is anyone else going to vote tactically?

I voted Conservative last time. I have previously, on occasion, voted Lib Dem. Whilst I don't agree wholeheartedly with their offering, I think the Tories should carry on. I am particularly impressed by the leader of the Scottish Conservatives Ruth Davidson, who had a good referendum.

The Tories are polling 3rd in my constituency. The sitting MP was Labour's Scottish leader Jim Murphy. The Lib Dems are nowhere. The SNP are hopeful of snatching it from Labour and "decapitating" the party up here.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, support for Indy is steady at 40 something percent, which lost the referendum but will sweep the board under FPTP.

Latest polling suggests it is neck and neck between Labour and the SNP in this constituency and the difference could be made by Lib Dem and Tory voters tactically supporting Labour, to keep the SNP out.

I dislike the idea of Ed M as Prime Minister.

I dislike more the SNP, their likely effect on UK government and their ultimate goal.

I think I'm going to hold my nose and vote Labour.

Eurgh.

I hate the FPTP system. I think this election might kill it.

I've not a clue who I'm voting anymore - was labour to keep out Galloway, but his approval rating at the debates plummeted (13%, against 24% for the greens, 38% for labour) and that the result is almost version to be overturned if he wins makes that vote a bit of a waste. Still, the debates were open to uni students only so that may have skewed it somewhat (I do like Galloway moaning on Twitter that his cronies, all none students without tickets, weren't allowed into a ticketed student only debate therefore it was being rigged). May still vote labour on the off chance he result doesn't get overturned, since he relies on idiots and there's a great surplus of them here.

[Guest]

I don't disagree with that in principle, however to continue today's theme of making the left's argument for them, what about the people who aren't capable of earning a good wage for whatever reason, and what about the people who don't have the luxury of a convenient parental home in which to stay while saving for a deposit?

Even with the ability to save significant sums for a deposit, house prices rising above inflation, above savings rates, and above wage growth means the required deposit keeps getting further out of reach. Someone who needs £10k for a deposit today and commits to saving £2k per year finds that when they reach their goal in five years time, they then require £15k for a deposit on the same property. It ends up taking a decade or more to save just for a deposit.

 

That is why we have public housing. 

[Guest Bilo]

 

It is scaremongering - yes, the entire population of Romania could rock up on our doorstep and we'd have to let them in, but if you look at the immigration stats it just isn't happening. Latvians have been able to rock up and work here for a decade now, how many have actually come?

 

I've not a clue who I'm voting anymore - was labour to keep out Galloway, but his approval rating at the debates plummeted (13%, against 24% for the greens, 38% for labour) and that the result is almost version to be overturned if he wins makes that vote a bit of a waste. Still, the debates were open to uni students only so that may have skewed it somewhat (I do like Galloway moaning on Twitter that his cronies, all none students without tickets, weren't allowed into a ticketed student only debate therefore it was being rigged). May still vote labour on the off chance he result doesn't get overturned, since he relies on idiots and there's a great surplus of them here.

 

Certain nationalities gravitate towards certain nations - Romanians outnumber Brits in Spain and represent 20% of all foreign nationals in Italy - they'll go to where there is already a community. The same with Turkish people in Germany if and when Turkey joins the EU. 

 

I would still vote Labour in Bradford to keep Galloway out - you know as well as anyone he has a ready supply of morons who won't look at the fact that he's continually beasted in hustings and his shocking parliamentary record, they'll vote because he 'telz da troof about da jooz,' and they will vote Galloway for those reasons regardless. Each and every vote will count up there, so vote Labour if you want the best chance of keeping Galloway's left-wing answer to the BNP out of Bradford for good.

 

As you say, there is always the small chance that the election won't be overturned once he plays the Islamophobia or Zionist Conspiracy card, when it's clear that it's his and Respect's behaviour that has led to the election being unsafe rather than anything else.

 

It's interesting as well that his support base seemed to implode as soon as he stepped onto a university campus, it rather shows that the argument of scrapping the tuition fees that apparently won the student vote in 2012 is no longer taken seriously. This must be put down to the general air of toxicity, misogyny and thuggery that surrounds him and his party - I can't imagine him bagging the feminist vote, or indeed the women's vote in general, given his bizarre views on rape and forced marriage.

[MooseBreath]

This is exactly it.

The same things were said about Indian people in the 1960s, now one of the most successful communities in the UK and whose children consistently outperform white British children educationally.

The young Eastern European migrants, especially Polish people, are often overqualified for their jobs and will eventually climb the ladder once they've amassed a good CV in the UK, as well as mastered the language and way of life. When they do this, their contribution to the British economy becomes even greater.

We've had waves of migration along the same kind of pattern since the war for that reason. Migrants enter the country and do the low paid jobs, they settle here and become more acclimatised to the country and then the second/third generations of these migrants improve their lot. It happened with Jewish people fleeing the pogroms in the early twentieth century, many black people in the 1950s, Indian people in particular in the 1960s and so on.

It takes time, but migration is a good thing from which the entire country benefits. Of course it has to be controlled, but the idea that immigrants are a threat to our way of life is not correct.

I agree with that, I just find it a bit odd that the left use pure economic arguments to justify immigration but not for anything else. I mean let's face it, the majority of the economic benefit is being scooped up by big business and for everyone else to benefit requires that big business profits are effectively and efficienctly distributed, something that the left don't usually believe.

There's also evidence that immigration exerts negative pressure on low-end wages which further disadvantages poorer residents. The left supporting an idea that primarily benefits the already wealthy at least in a greater proportion to, and arguably at the expense of, the existing poorer residents is unusual to say the least.

[The Doctor]

That is why we have public housing.

With nearly 2m on the waiting list for it, there's not enough public housing to meet demand

[bovril]

 

It is scaremongering - yes, the entire population of Romania could rock up on our doorstep and we'd have to let them in, but if you look at the immigration stats it just isn't happening. Latvians have been able to rock up and work here for a decade now, how many have actually come?

 

 

A sizable chunk of Latvia's population has left. It's a huge problem for E European countries, although the argument doesn't usually focus on this. 

[Guest]

I agree with that, I just find it a bit odd that the left use pure economic arguments to justify immigration but not for anything else. I mean let's face it, the majority of the economic benefit is being scooped up by big business and for everyone else to benefit requires that big business profits are effectively and efficienctly distributed, something that the left don't usually believe.

There's also evidence that immigration exerts negative pressure on low-end wages which further disadvantages poorer residents. The left supporting an idea that primarily benefits the already wealthy at least in a greater proportion to, and arguably at the expense of, the existing poorer residents is unusual to say the least.

 

That's where a fair tax system comes into play.

 

I have no problem with working people earning more money, then high earners pay higher tax - corporations too.

[Guest]

With nearly 2m on the waiting list for it, there's not enough public housing to meet demand

 

2 points.

 

Britain sold off it's public housing to create false wealth in the 80's. 

 

Many of those on the waiting lists should be still at home.

[The Doctor]

2 points.

 

Britain sold off it's public housing to create false wealth in the 80's. 

 

Many of those on the waiting lists should be still at home.

Not arguing with the first, but the second assumes there's a home for them to be at. A good chunk of people I went to school with have already lost at least 1 parent. And these are 21/22 year olds, the sort who can't afford their own home. Chuck into that people that have been disowned by their families (it's in particular a big problem with kids of Muslims families choosing to exercise their freedom of religion) and you've got people who can't stay at home, because they don't have a home, their parents can't support them or their parents want nothing to do with them. If you're lucky enough to have a family to fall back on while trying to get a foot on the housing ladder, great, but a lot don't have that.

[Guest]

Not arguing with the first, but the second assumes there's a home for them to be at. A good chunk of people I went to school with have already lost at least 1 parent. And these are 21/22 year olds, the sort who can't afford their own home. Chuck into that people that have been disowned by their families (it's in particular a big problem with kids of Muslims families choosing to exercise their freedom of religion) and you've got people who can't stay at home, because they don't have a home, their parents can't support them or their parents want nothing to do with them. If you're lucky enough to have a family to fall back on while trying to get a foot on the housing ladder, great, but a lot don't have that.

 

I think you are over exaggerating the second point exceptions. The fact of 21/22 yo only having 1 parent is a red herring. That is all the more reason for them to stay at home and share the costs. People disowned by their families is a social/community problem - people need to solve their petty disputes - and yes until people can afford to live away from home they need to accept restrictions to their freedoms and tow the line with "parents" rules a lot more. Parents can't support them is another red herring - the govt gives the person an allowance in this case probably both the parent and young adult. The cost of sharing one roof is less than running two rooves.

 

The housing ladder is not a right and the sooner the younger generation understand that the better. This is only a relatively recent idea. If only more people stayed at home for longer and used the family resources at hand then the whole community would be in a better position. Old people would have companionship and young parents would have child minders. People would be more in touch  and understanding of other generations. I truly believe that local crime would also go down.

 

There will be some exceptions that you point out but most of them boil down to young people believing they have the RIGHT to their own home, own car, own tv, own smart phone, own play station and not realising that they need to work hard to get any of these. At the moment children realise that they have to live under parental rules until 16 - perhaps if the mentality shifted to 25 -30  a lot of your "exceptions" wouldn't arise.

[sphericalfox]

I think any reasonable reader will comprehend the point being made, so I'll leave it at that. If you require more information, Google it yourself.

 

I think any reasonable reader will know that one swallow doesn't make a summer. Where are the statistical facts you mention, I assume you've found them yourself at some point? You've ignored the report (not biased left wing media) which justified my point with facts. Where are yours? Just tell me which website, it'll help my 'googling' filter. 

 

I appreciate that the report I've offered is from 2009, so it's a little out of date. I'm sure had the Tories had the chance they would have renewed the report to identify this massive failure of service clogging immigrants that you and your cohort mention and are convinced of without any statistical evidence on show.

[Guest]

I'm an immigrant into France. I've brought a lot of money into the French system, I've used my skills to improve the education of thousands of French people and I've taken out very little - never having claimed a centime for unemployment or housing etc...

[ADK]

How old are you FIF?

[Guest]

How old are you FIF?

 

What's the relevance?

[ADK]

What's the relevance?

Just wondered. You seem to feel qualified to judge younger people as entitled.

[Guest]

Just wondered. You seem to feel qualified to judge younger people as entitled.

 

It's a forum where we give our views.

 

I do feel qualified to talk about Uni/Education and young people and I judge everyone ( we all do whether you want to admit that or not). 

 

I'm in my 50's. I've lived in the UK and France. I'm highly qualified from secondary education through to a number of unis including Oxford. 

 

I set up my own business and sold it for a nice packet, I'm a university prof. teaching students from Bachelors to Doctorate level in a number of very different disciplines. I've also taught (and still do) some of the highest earners and most specialised private company and state employees in Europe.

 

Damn right I'll judge younger people in the UK as feeling entitled. They should try growing up in Africa or some Asian countries.

[ADK]

It's a forum where we give our views.

 

I do feel qualified to talk about Uni/Education and young people and I judge everyone ( we all do whether you want to admit that or not). 

 

I'm in my 50's. I've lived in the UK and France. I'm highly qualified from secondary education through to a number of unis including Oxford. 

 

I set up my own business and sold it for a nice packet, I'm a university prof. teaching students from Bachelors to Doctorate level in a number of very different disciplines. I've also taught (and still do) some of the highest earners and most specialised private company and state employees in Europe.

 

Damn right I'll judge younger people in the UK as feeling entitled. They should try growing up in Africa or some Asian countries.

 

I don't really judge people, I like to understand where they get their viewpoints from.

[MooseBreath]

I think any reasonable reader will know that one swallow doesn't make a summer. Where are the statistical facts you mention, I assume you've found them yourself at some point? You've ignored the report (not biased left wing media) which justified my point with facts. Where are yours? Just tell me which website, it'll help my 'googling' filter.

I appreciate that the report I've offered is from 2009, so it's a little out of date. I'm sure had the Tories had the chance they would have renewed the report to identify this massive failure of service clogging immigrants that you and your cohort mention and are convinced of without any statistical evidence on show.

My point is that additional people require additional services. This seems quite a simple concept to me. You're saying it's not true, I've provided a link that backs up my point.

If it's not true, why don't you provide a link that shows that an influx of immigrants with children who require school places doesn't actually lead to an increase in the number of children requiring school places? If you can do that I'll concede the point.

[Guest]

I don't really judge people, I like to understand where they get their viewpoints from.

So how old are you? 

 

I think you probably replace the word "judge" by something else.

 

It was your word not mine. Perhaps you would use the word "evaluate"?