This is a discussion on One in nine people living in Britain are foreign within the Immigration & Asylum Forum forums, part of the Government in general discussion category; Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter have you got the link to the government source (also net immigration figures are not ...
Conservative Member
To be honest with you, I wouldn't be suprised if the Government did get it wrong. I do not know where the source is, however, I will try and find it for you.Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter
I was using it for politics the other day, so I am sure I can track it down.
I will add this, Malta was not including in the league table.
But I am sure we can do some calculations:
Britain:
Population: 60,975,000 est.
Mass: 94,526 square miles
Density: 0.00155
Malta:
Population: 410,290
Mass: 121 square miles
Density: 0.0002949
You are indeed correct. Malta is more densly populated. However, Malta was not included in the league table.
Same old MNbluster and hyperbole . Show me one fact i got wrong ?
I said the accession countries citizens were barred from accessing the job markets of Germany , France , Italy and Spain .... they were FACT!!
Look at the date of your link 2008 they joined in 2004 only the UK and Ireland left the front door wide open as i said . Even your link should have provided you with a clue ... France is lifting it's restrictions... speaking of looking stupid
Senior MP
So what if some people are foreign born? My parents weren't born in Ireland and they aren't a burden, or criminals. What exactly is your point? At least have the testicular fortitude to make one."The number of foreigners in the UK grew by 290,000 in the year to June 2008, according to statistics published today.
The figures mean that one in nine people now resident in Britain was born abroad. Official figures show 6.5 million people born overseas were resident in the UK in the year to June 2008, an increase of 290,000 on the year to June 2007.
The Annual Population Survey showed 4.1 million foreign nationals resident in the UK in the year to June 2008, compared with 3.8 million in the year to June 2007.
There were fall in the number of short-term migrants coming to study for less than 12 months, down 13 per cent to 374,000 for the year to June 2007.
Other figures showed in that in the 12 months to September 2008, 720,000 national insurance numbers were allocated to adult foreign nationals, seven per cent down on the previous year.
Other figures released by the Home Office showed an increase in applications from asylum seekers from 23,430 to 25,670 in 2008."
One in nine people living in Britain is foreign, figures show - Telegraph
Fed up writing the same old thing ....
http://planetsmilies.net/flag-smiley-7325.gif +=
= http://planetsmilies.net/violent-smiley-1426.gif= http://www.clipartof.com/images/emot...9_emoticon.gif
Same old MN
I said the accession countries citizens were barred from accessing the job markets of Germany , France , Italy and Spain .... they were FACT!!
Look at the date of your link 2008 they joined in 2004 only the UK and Ireland left the front door wide open as i said . Even your link should have provided you with a clue ... France is lifting it's restrictions... speaking of looking stupid
As I say I don't mind being shown to wrong, if indeed I have been, especially on an area that I have not researched in depth.
However my link shows that this was only temporary (in France's case) so you were very wrong to imply that they have a different policy here.
One example of facts you did get wrong was
yes they have - all those countries needed extensive subsidy.Have the countries that barred the hundreds of thousands of eastern European immigrants/workers that came here failed to compete (no)
However is rather misleading to post France barred these nations to enter when it seems these restrictions were lifted and NEVER interned for the long term anyway, hence my comments.
You are the one that never admits to being wrong even when as in so many other cases you clearly are here.
I am quite happy to be shown to wrong about this or anything else for that matter.
The main point remains that you blame government immigration policy for global economic problems and want to resort to anti capitalist, nationalized socialist policies to correct the problem. Which is interesting to say the least. Can't think of any free market solutions, obvioulsy
Conservative Member
I would like to add no restriction is long term as it goes against EU rules.
You can have a restriction for a couple of years.
Which makes quite the mockery of Albion's case then doesn't it! Thank you for this.
So the truth is Albion's suggestion for a future policy of closing our boarders to these workers would be illegal. He implies that it wouldn't by pointing out that France etc did it legally. Again misleading is almost as bad as lying IMO
<Adjusts undercarriage> .. my point is the numbers of foreign born people is likely to lead to social tensions (already has ) especially as we enter a recession where jobs are scarce . Government immigration policy will lead to unsustainable increases in the UK population which in my view will have disastrous consequences.
Not much of an admission you were completely wrong , i stated the fact that restrictions were placed on the accession countries by everyone except Uk and Ireland . Did i say they were permanent ? Every other EU country realised the likely outcome of allowing immediate free access to their labour markets , our government did not and made ludicrous estimates about the numbers likely to arrive here . About 13,000 per year as i recall ... in reality hundreds of thousands came here
Balanced immigration is not anti capitalist or National socialist but is vital for the future stability of the UK .
Well it is not free market is it?
Well it was an admission which is more than you have made. As you were wrong about competitiveness of these nations, you were wrong about the legality of such restrictions (thanks LA), you were wrong about my proposal to use tax subsidies to stimulate northern economies and encourage migration of immigrants within the UK
Guess I'm the bigger man; but I knew that already
Balanced immigration is not closing the borders as you well know , it is clear to me that you have little or no idea what you are talking about on this subject (makes a change) and are now resorting to grossly misrepresenting my position to cover your embarrassment ... very sad
Balanced immigration is not closing the borders as you well know , it is clear to me that you have little or no idea what you are talking about on this subject (makes a change) and are now resorting to grossly misrepresenting my position to cover your embarrassment ... very sad
Not really, You implied we should follow the Frech etc examople which in the long term would be illegal, it would appear. This totally vindicates my case THAT IT IS NOT A NATIONAL POLICY ISSUE - so you are wrong on this as well, Albion,
There is nothing to embarrassed about, yes I get things wrong (far less often than you I may add) and I am big enough to admit it ( you are not)
You were wrong about so many things is this debate (competitiveness, pan to stimulate northern economies etc) by failing to acknowledge this it does not mean you were any less wrong. A bit childish of you to play this game.
Also your balanced immigration plan is far from conducive to good competition in global markets which was MY main point that you have constantly side stepped coz you know you are lost here. You want to advocate free markets and a state controlled labour market. You are trying to hide this with the sort of rubbish above about me being embarrassed.
Have the dencey to admit that your proposals are anti free market and would make the UK less comepetitive in global markets, for goodness sake. At least i have the common courtursy to admit when I am wrong
Competiveness of nations ..... World Economic Forum - Global Competitiveness ReportWell it is not free market is it?
Well it was an admission which is more than you have made. As you were wrong about competitiveness of these nations, you were wrong about the legality of such restrictions (thanks LA), you were wrong about my proposal to use tax subsidies to stimulate northern economies and encourage migration of immigrants within the UK
Guess I'm the bigger man; but I knew that already
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gcr/2008/rankings.pdf
Still have no idea do you ? ... the majority of immigration is from outside the EU .
Your proposals were absurd .
Ner ner ner ner ner
The link does not mention France or Spain. Is interesting that countries with high levels of immigration are so competitive tho is it not?
The other link shows Italy to be very low down the rankings (bearing in mind this includes subsidies, a reason France is able to remain quite high despite its uncompetitive farming sector) so thanks for posting the evidence for my case. Note how countries with high immigration like the UK score higher, although this is not to say that competitiveness is directly linked to immigration but the ability to import cheap labour is a huge factor for reasons so obvious even you can surely see them without me explaining why.
But you were discussing E.Euro immigrationStill have no idea do you ? ... the majority of immigration is from outside the EU .Again will you ever admit to being wrong on continue to play this childish oneupmanship games, which as enjoyable as they are must be rather dull for other members.
Your proposals were absurd .
says it all, I thinkNer ner ner ner ner
Your detailed comprehensive analysis is interesting but please note there were two links where you will find France and Spain .The link does not mention France or Spain. Is interesting that countries with high levels of immigration are so competitive tho is it not?
The other link shows Italy to be very low down the rankings (bearing in mind this includes subsidies, a reason France is able to remain quite high despite its uncompetitive farming sector) so thanks for posting the evidence for my case. Note how countries with high immigration like the UK score higher, although this is not to say that competitiveness is directly linked to immigration but the ability to import cheap labour is a huge factor for reasons so obvious even you can surely see them without me explaining why.
But you were discussing E.Euro immigration
Your proposals were absurd .
says it all, I think
In relation to the economic benefits of immigration ....
Do migrants add to economic growth?
Yes but they also add to population.
In a recent parliamentary debate, a Home Office Minister gave an official estimate that "migration has increased output by at least Ģ4 billion and (accounts for) 10 - 15% of economic trend growth" But the Government had failed to take into account the addition to population. In 2005 net immigration was 185,000 which, on a population of 60 million, is 0.31%. At the same time the governments estimate of Ģ4 billion on a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of approximately Ģ1,250 billion is 0.32%. The benefit in terms of GDP per head is therefore trivial about 0.01% of GDP or just 4p per head per week less than a Mars bar per month.
As for the claim that migration accounts for 10 - 15% of trend growth, the result is the same. Trend growth is 2.5% so 10-15% of trend growth is 0.25% to 0.375% of GDP. The effect on GDP per head is therefore a small negative or positive amount.
Other recent studies in the UK, and studies carried out in other countries, point to the same conclusion namely that immigration makes little difference to GDP per head.
Do we need immigration to boost our economy?
Major studies in Canada and the United States have concluded that the benefit of immigration to the economy as a whole is positive but very small. The impact on GDP per head is a small fraction of 1%. In Britain, congestion costs probably wipe that out since we are 12 times as crowded as the United States. It follows that the case for large scale immigration is a matter for decision on political and social grounds. The economic case is at best neutral.
MWUK - Frequently Asked Questions
I doubt you will be persuaded but never mind , this thread deteriorated into farce some time ago best we leave it there i think.
Senior MP
Just out of curiosity, is that an image I would enjoy?
And there are British people working abroad who do jobs that could be done by locals. Should they be kicked out? It's not like you're entitled to a job because you're from a particular country, especially if others can do the job cheaper. You deal with social tensions by making the immigrants integrate and the locals not hamper them.my point is the numbers of foreign born people is likely to lead to social tensions (already has ) especially as we enter a recession where jobs are scarce .
As a libertarian, I don't see why people coming to another country shouldn't be allowed to. No, they shouldn't be living off the taxpayer, but that goes for the locals too. Most of the British Isles is not built on. You could take many more people.Government immigration policy will lead to unsustainable increases in the UK population which in my view will have disastrous consequences.
I only saw them on the second link tbh, the table where I had a very quick look and it seemed to rather support my case rather than yours (noting Italy to be very far down the table and again please bear subsidies in mind, the all those nations get a lot more moeny to help tham be more comopetive than we do yet we out perform them largely due to the fact we have less labour restrictions - workl hours, etc, but other factors are involved and as aforementioned this is not so simple) , but ok, lets not get too far side tracked on this one (although it should be easy to see how this relates to the argument below)
I don't think it is quite a farce, as I was willing to admit that I had it wrong about France and Spain etc...so this would have allowed us (if you were willing to be sensible) to progress and discuss how my plan ( a plan used by the Tories to encourage regeneration in some cities, i believe , although again may be wrong) is 'just silly' or whatever you wrote,and indeed to discuss the issue of how free mobility of labour globally is a required assumption for global capitalism.
I have seen this before and it does not really speak to the point I was making. Economic growth is not the issue here (although it is related). The point I make is so simple, i thought it would not require further elaboration, but again I admit to be wrong about this as well.
To be competitive in Global markets we need to be able to produce goods and services at a competitive rate. Now costs drive up prices and a significant cost is that of labour. If immigrants are prepared to work for less (I am not coninced of this but will accept it for the sake of argument) then they help British business to drive down costs and so export at lower prices (thus being more comepitive). Now presumably if the assumption that immigarnts work for less is true then if we prevent many from coming in they will work in other countries for lower wages allowig them to produce goods cheaper. We also presume British workers want more money and work less hours (again am not sure this is true, but does undepin much of your argument), thus british goods will be more expensive. Firms are likely to re-locate abroad where they can get cheaper labour (this laready happens an happens a lot) thus shriniking our economy further and reduces the UK job market (not great for british workers either is it?) . Thus immigartion, in theory prevents comapnies (or at least makes it less likely) for them to go abroad. We can now see the flaw in migration watch's case, as they are 1. looking backwards (as that sort of research sort of has to, I suppose, thus ignores trends in firm relocation and ineternational labour market prices and 2. Ignores the affect that cheap labour from other nations a has on this country's economy (i.e takes this nation's, or USA or whatever nation's econmoy out of its global context)
Free mobility of labour allows for the cheapest labour to found and should according to economic theory evedntually allow all countries to benefit.
Now this whole thing is premised on liberal economic theorteical assumptions (ones that I am not wholly convinced by, as I'm sure you know), but ones YOU AS A TORY SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO!
Now maybe you can finally see my point that your answer goes against the assumptions of liberal, global economics. Mine is consistent with it (more shame on me).
Now if this is not a reasoned argument as far as you are concerned I really don;t know what is???? In fact you may try making an argument yourself rather than parroting migration watch who ignore trends in world economics and are merely concerned with national level economic growth (based on past data and ignoring future global trends - bad idea when u think of China and India) and even here they admit immigration does have some measurable positive impact, largely for the reasons that I have already explained.
This is the point I have made all the way through this discussion but I did not think I had to spell it out to you in such a simplistic way for you to understand it. Sorry if this is patronizing but It seemed you need to see the argument presented in simple terms as you kept missing the point which is, you do not seem to want free markets and controlled boarders and this (given the assumptions above) is unlikely to be good for our global competitiveness
Conservative Member
Your calculations Albion are quite correct. Mass immigration has no benefit to the UK economy in real terms. Ģ6billion sounds like a lot, but when comparing that to the costs, Ģ6billion is burnable to a country as wealthy as Britain.
Generally, only skilled workers leave Britain to work in other EU countries because the tax is lower, they can earn more, or it is much cheaper to live.
I have a few reasons.As a libertarian, I don't see why people coming to another country shouldn't be allowed to. No, they shouldn't be living off the taxpayer, but that goes for the locals too. Most of the British Isles is not built on. You could take many more people
The free movement of people causes disease and illness to travel. 96% of Hep B cases in Britain did not originate in Britain. They came from foreigners who then came here.
Polio is not a British disease. Foreigners come into Britain with the disease. The same for TB and other serious conditions.
It is not required. Restrictions can be in place; even strict restrictions, and global capitalism could still thrive.
It would be worth it for businesses if this was the case. However, in most cases this is just not true. Most legal immigrants to this country, are paid the same as if they were British.To be competitive in Global markets we need to be able to produce goods and services at a competitive rate. Now costs drive up prices and a significant cost is that of labour. If immigrants are prepared to work for less
Britain doesn't need foreign labour to survive, we just need to get rid of our ridiculous well-no-fair system, and get people into work.
That only works if the major industry is primary or secondary. The fact in Britain is most industries; I believe over 80% are Tertiary.Now presumably if the assumption that immigarnts work for less is true then if we prevent many from coming in they will work in other countries for lower wages allowig them to produce goods cheaper.
Wow, I really never thought I would get to use the word Tertiary... I finally used it
Back on topic.
As I was stating, roughly 80% (I believe) of businesses are in the tertiary sector, which means competitiveness is different. Add in my above comment relating to payment of labour, and you realise that immigration has no real benefit to Britain.
Again not true. Though it is common belief that British workers are lazy and wish to be paid more, a survey conducted last year discovered that people wanted to work more than 35 hours a week, however, EU Laws prevented it.We also presume British workers want more money and work less hours
In regards to the money, everyone wants more money.
They move abroad because many countries like India, Pakistan etc have no minimum wage, which means you can literally pay your staff next to nothing.Firms are likely to re-locate abroad where they can get cheaper labour
I highlighted the important key word in your statement.Thus immigartion, in theory prevents comapnies (or at least makes it less likely) for them to go abroad.
Probably notJust out of curiosity, is that an image I would enjoy?
And there are British people working abroad who do jobs that could be done by locals. Should they be kicked out? It's not like you're entitled to a job because you're from a particular country, especially if others can do the job cheaper. You deal with social tensions by making the immigrants integrate and the locals not hamper them.
As a libertarian, I don't see why people coming to another country shouldn't be allowed to. No, they shouldn't be living off the taxpayer, but that goes for the locals too. Most of the British Isles is not built on. You could take many more people.
Rather emotive terminology , when did i say kick out the foreigners ?
Balanced immigration could be achieved by not renewing work visas and limiting the issuing of new ones until we have stabilised population growth.
I am not sure you are aware of the numbers , i would recommend reading this document http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/balancedmigration.pdf. It makes clear the majority of immigrants come from outside the EU and are not here because of globalisation but ill thought through government policy. The projected growth in the population is alarming to say the least ...
"Record immigration is fuelling the biggest rise in the population for almost 50 years, official figures show.
- ONS report on national population projections
- Sir Andrew Green: We must cut back numbers now
- Your view: How can Britain cope with the population surge?
Ten years from now, there will be 65 million people in the UK - an increase of five million - and by 2031, the population will be over 70 million, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.
Within a generation, immigration will add the equivalent of a city the size of London to the population.
This is the fastest growth rate since the post-war baby boom - and is far more rapid than the Government forecast just three years ago.
One campaign group accused the Government of conducting a ''vast unplanned experiment’’ with the country’s well-being.
Statisticians said at least 70 per cent of the population rise over the next 20 years will be attributable directly to immigration.
The rest will be babies born to British mothers - many of whom are second-generation immigrants. "
Record immigration sees UK population soar - Telegraph
You might be aware that the UK infrastructure is barely coping as it is , i think it is pie in the sky to imagine we could build the homes , upgrade the travel network , build more hospitals , schools and other services to meet the needs of a much increased population , especially considering UKPLC large debt levels will take a generation to reduce.
Integration is possible if immigration is small scale and planned for , this has not been the case over the last decade , hence the increase in support for the BNP and immigration rising to the number one issue for most people .
Agree with you ,immigrants or indigenous people should not live off the tax payer .We have imported workers while sustaining a million plus unemployed and millions more on other benefits ..... barking mad !
that;s not what Albion (parroting migration watch) actually say. There is a small albeit negligible benefit, the net bit is the debatable aspect. Do we assume they increase the aging population as M watch does? well there are reaosns not to be so sure as many go back home in their old age although some don't. this point is far from settled!
I will have to check but from my own experience of people I know I am inclined to think the numbers are quite high.Generally, only skilled workers leave Britain to work in other EU countries because the tax is lower, they can earn more, or it is much cheaper to live.
An argument for tox screening, if anything, not for less immigration I think
I have a few reasons.
The free movement of people causes disease and illness to travel. 96% of Hep B cases in Britain did not originate in Britain. They came from foreigners who then came here.
Polio is not a British disease. Foreigners come into Britain with the disease. The same for TB and other serious conditions.
Not sure, did you read my argument, the logic seems sound to me. Yes global capitalism could still thrive just we'd be left behind in the long term.It is not required. Restrictions can be in place; even strict restrictions, and global capitalism could still thrive.
Yes it is a theoretical argument. But then if you are correct , as you may well be, in assuming immigrants work for the same wage as the british then surely British people having better language skills and more experience would be employed over immigrants in almost all jobs, in which case, there is fair competition between british and immigrants with the british having the advantage, if there is one, so then what is the problem with immigartion in the first place?
Surely then immigrants only do the jobs brits don;t want and as everyone tells me this is not true then I assume the only reason they get employed is coz they are cheaper.
Indeed you agree many firms relocate abroad, and yes it is for cheaper labour, so surely my argument stands???
Conservative Member
I feel it my obligation to point out why that statement is hugely flawed.
Balanced immigration could be achieved by renewing as many work visas as we possibly could. Why?
Because work visas are completely different from immigration.
Immigration is the act of one leaving ones country to settle in another. A work permit is a legal document granting temporary ability to seek and operate in work in the signed country.
As such, work permits can continue as they are beneficial to our economy. However, removing work permits from the equation, I completely agree with you.
Immigration is a huge problem that needs to be combated.
[quote=Marxist Nutter;62929]that;s not what Albion (parroting migration watch) actually say. There is a small albeit negligible benefit, the net bit is the debatable aspect. Do we assume they increase the aging population as M watch does? well there are reaosns not to be so sure as many go back home in their old age although some don't. this point is far from settled!
The government have ignored one important fact.
Immigrants get old.
They are worth Ģ6billion now. Soon they will cost Ģ16billion...
*The figure of Ģ16billion was complerely made up and has no statistical basis what so ever. The reason for its usage was to emphasis the problem the government has made.
I dont believe we would.Not sure, did you read my argument, the logic seems sound to me. Yes global capitalism could still thrive just we'd be left behind in the long term.
There is no real need for immigrationso then what is the problem with immigartion in the first place?
They do jobs British people aren't doing. The reason British people aren't doing them is because they are better off on benefits.Surely then immigrants only do the jobs brits don;t want and as everyone tells me this is not true then I assume the only reason they get employed is coz they are cheaper.
In many cases, the immigrants are paid the same.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just adding to it.Indeed you agree many firms relocate abroad, and yes it is for cheaper labour, so surely my argument stands???
Apologies to both LA and Albion, on re-reading my argument there is a huge omission that although implied was not made explicit. The real difference I think between my thinkinga nd migration watch is I see the world as a connected system, and not as split up into nations, this is, i think a reality of 21st century global capiatalism, therefore what happens in one nations will have knock on effects across the globe (this is a dimension i feel missing from uch MW analyses)
Again taking the argument about mobility of labour as a premise. I should also add another dimension here. Higher wages in the UK attract people here (obviously). Countries like India and china are able to out compete us ue to much lower wages, however our higher wages attaract much of the best workers (high skilled) from not just Poland and E. Europe but also China and India and many other places. Now if we restricted these workers coming in then they will be forced to work for less else where (alternativly work for a high wage in another western nation) so we either lose the skills to another western nation (not a huge problem as we have our own skilled workforce) or we lose them to a country with lower wages - now this is potenially disasterous for us. This means nations such as China and India will benefit from highly skilled workers (maybe even educated in the UK) at low wages, which further increases their ability to out compete us. Also means firms will be access highly skilled workforces for low wages (as the already do) and so provide further incentive to locate aborad and not in the UK. I mean if you can have high skilled workers in china for a tenth of the cost of the same skilled workers in the UK it makes no sense at all to locate your business in the UK. Now although this is all theory I hope you can see that THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING IN REALITY and so is not so abstract as to bear no relation to the real world!
Now surely, Albion, my idea (as I say i think it was a Tory idea too, so goodness know why you think it so silly) of providing tax incentives for firms to locate in the North/ Scotland is not a bad one as it may help to convince firms to stay in the UK and also to provide business where it is most needed. However no tax incentive wil make up for the ability to access cheap high skilled labour in be it Poland, China or wherever, so I will stick to my guns and say from a free market perspective it makes sense to allow these people to earn high UK wages as it helps create jobs for British workers too rather than encouraging firms to seek lower wages.
Good point, i should have said checking individuals actually leave when their visas expire would be only one small part of the measures needed to bring about balanced immigration , as some people just disappear into society when their permit expires ....
" For nearly eight years there has been no check on foreigners entering or leaving Britain. We issue 2.5 million visas every year but nobody has any idea how many of those visitors, students and business people actually return to their home countries. "
http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pape...t_27apr_06.asp
..... estimates of who is here illegally vary but numbers are probably significant considering how unfit for purpose our border controls have been. By far the biggest area we can change is non EU immigration where the largest numbers are to be found and we still have the power to act , a points system with an upper limit may be the best option overseen by a new (Conservative) government
As your argument relies on this notion of 'balanced immigration' I have to ask, what precisely, is this (please try not to define -vely in opposition to government policy)? Sounds like a fatasmatic construction if I ever heard one, like 'cohesive communities'.Good point, i should have said checking individuals actually leave when their visas expire would be only one small part of the measures needed to bring about balanced immigration , as some people just disappear into society when their permit expires .... estimates of who is here illegally vary but numbers are probably significant considering how unfit for purpose our border controls have been. By far the biggest area we can change is non EU immigration where the largest numbers are to be found and we still have the power to act , a points system with an upper limit may be the best option overseen by a new (Conservative) government
So how would the Tories deal with
1. Illegal immigration (off the radar immigration - where we can only estimate it's scale)
2. what systems do you put in place to decide who can/cannot work/ enter the UK? How is this paid for?
3. Will you have a quota system?
Also as you think there are already too many immigrants here, surely you would either
1. send some back, if so how exactly (costed measures please, so bear in mind the expense of deportation and how this is paid for)
2. close boarders completely for a time
if neither then how is your fantasy of a balanced immigration system going to address the 'problem' you have identified ?
NB fantasy here refers to use of a signifier such as 'balanced immigration' to serve to be the solution to all problems rather than a set of concrete proposals, such fantasies mask the need for such proposals.
Chancellor
Minister 'appalled' by stats body
Immigration Minister Phil Woolas has accused the Office for National Statistics of "playing politics" with population figures.
He said he was "appalled" at the release of figures showing one in nine British residents was born abroad.
In a letter Mr Woolas describes the decision to release the data as "at best naive or, at worst, sinister".
The Tories have accused the government of "bullying" the ONS and trying to "suppress" embarrassing information.
And Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the Home Office should get their "tanks off the statisticians' lawn".
The ONS declined to comment on Mr Woolas's intervention.
Full story at : BBC NEWS | Politics | Minister 'appalled' by stats body
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
Hilarious to read a Nu Labour politician complaining about other organisations playing politics with statistics
The Government are desperate to portray themselves as getting a grip on immigration as key sections of their support switches to the BNP, any stats that show this may not be entirely true are best kept under wraps ... well done ONS
Senior MP
People are attracted here because it’s too easy to get in plus once you’re in you get what you want.
We are a soft country. We need to tighten up the boarders that so many brave people fought to defend.
Immigrants are not welcome here. 99% of people I speak to don’t want immigrants in this country.
This is Britain, not Poland, not India, not Pakistan, not Russia, Not Africa. Britain.
Its ok to have a few immigrants living here but these numbers are ridiculous.
From SussexWithLove
Senior MP
BNP are the only hope. UKIP and the others cant save us, it's too far gone.Hilarious to read a Nu Labour politician complaining about other organisations playing politics with statistics
The Government are desperate to portray themselves as getting a grip on immigration as key sections of their support switches to the BNP, any stats that show this may not be entirely true are best kept under wraps ... well done ONS
From SussexWithLove
Conservative Member
With the right leader, the Conservative Party would resolve the problems we currently face.
No matter what the party, there is only one leader who could really help Britain now.
Anti-Ascription Crusader
Personally, somewhere on the Dalmatian coast - but my girlfriend would never agree!!
"Government by the people for the people becomes meaningless unless it includes major economic decision-making by the people for the people." - Jimmy Reid
Chancellor
Yes, there are some lovely islands there - and if you do ever decide to go irrespective of your current girlfriend's wishes, console yourself with the thought that there are some equally lovely girls living on them
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
Senior MP
I’ve just decided. I’m moving to Karachi.
Last edited by SussexWithLove; 16-03-2009 at 11:46 PM.
From SussexWithLove
Banned
Difference is what makes this world so colorful, and finding similarities between the people of different nationality,,, religion and culture is a way to make connections to the rest of the world. In addition to this, I found an exciting reading called The Age of Nepotism that talks about different cultures and the ways to connect with others. . You should check it out, as well as the site www.theageofnepotism.com
Chancellor
In general I would totally agree with you; I too enjoy meeting and talking to people of different cultures, you can both gain a great deal from it.
However the major problem here in the UK isn't so much that it's multi-racial, but the fact that we're a soft-touch for letting in far, far too many immigrants than either the population as a whole want or that there are jobs for. We also suffer from hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who the government seem to just turn a blind eye to!
We also seem to suffer from a government who are far too frightened of saying what people want them to say, in other words "you choose to come to Britain to live, accept our laws and customs or leave". There's nothing racist about this, it applies equally to an immigrant from Australia or the USA as it does to one from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Jamaica.
The whole situation is just far too one-sided for the majority of indigenous British citizens now, and sooner rather than later I feel there's going to some major civil unrest because of it.
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
Conservative Member
There won't be civil unrest. The British people are leaving Britain because of Labours ridiculous Immigration ********.
Its not just so much about accepting our laws and customs, but also what can they offer us?
Senior MP
Yea, they are all comming here.
Why can't Jesus eat M&Ms?
Because they keep falling through the holes in his hands!
Jesus may love you, but he won't respect you in the morning.
Conservative Member
Yea, they are all comming here.
British people are flocking in their hundreds to Australia, New Zealand and Spain.
Chancellor
But the big difference with the former two is that they're much, much harder to immigrate into. You have to meet a considerable number of strictly enforced criteria before you're granted any kind of working visa. Also the majority of people who go to Australia and New Zealand to work are either professionals or skilled in their trade, whereas those flooding in here are neither.
British people are flocking in their hundreds to Australia, New Zealand and Spain.
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
Conservative Member
What Midas says is absolutely true.
Australia is the biggest receiver of British migrants and Australia has quite a strict immigration policy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
2Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmarks