The Politics Thread

[thebish]

If it's only sixty thousand Bish, the costs are potentially huge to the public purse. Surely?

how so? as already pointed out - research suggests that immigration yields a net plus to the public purse - not a huge dent.

[Bijou Bob]

It has so far, according to one left of centre think tank. The suggestion from the Mail and others is that Romanians and Bulgarians will come here as benefit tourists, not to work as over a million Poles and others have done.

Time will tell.

[thebish]

It has so far, according to one left of centre think tank. The suggestion from the Mail and others is that Romanians and Bulgarians will come here as benefit tourists, not to work as over a million Poles and others have done.

Time will tell.

ahhh - didn't realise you meant The Mail.... who are the "others"? (Hoboh?)

(Mummy is not a gullible leftie - he's not usually disposed to believe ulterior-motived sources... his acceptance of the stats that allege a net immigrant gain to the UK coffers is not so lightly batted aside as mine or WtW's or Worthy's would be!)

[Bijou Bob]

I'm not suggesting Mummy is at all gullible, but he, like the rest of us I suspect, will access and possibly favour the evidence that accord with his own political beliefs.

If tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians turn up and lead productive lives that contribute to the economy, then great. Public services really cannot afford any other scenario.

[thebish]

If tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians turn up and lead productive lives that contribute to the economy, then great. Public services really cannot afford any other scenario.

the evidence of previous immigration events is that they will - so let's be hopeful!

[Bijou Bob]

What evidence is that then? :-p

[thebish]

What evidence is that then? :-p

errr...

research from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration at University College London, the other from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.

The UCL study concluded that between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from the European Economic Area contributed £8.8bn more than they received in benefits. That compared with a drain on the nation’s finances of £604.5bn by native Britons. More recent migrants contributed even more, the study found.

“Our analysis suggests that rather than being a drain on the UK’s fiscal system, immigrants arriving since the early 2000s have made substantial net contributions to the UK’s public finances, a reality that contrasts starkly with the view often maintained in public debate by the likes of Bijou Bob,” the report concludes.

“Between 2001 and 2011, recent EEA immigrants contributed to the fiscal system 34 per cent more than they took out, with a net fiscal contribution of about £22.1bn,” the study said. Migrants from non-EEA countries made a more modest but still positive contribution, putting in roughly 2 per cent more than they took out.

But over the same period, native Britons paid much less into the system than they took out in benefits, contributing only 89 per cent of what they cost. Even when the data are adjusted to take account of differences with the native population in gender mix, age and educational attainment, recent immigrants are still 21 per cent less likely than natives to be receiving benefits.


I presume you think these research bodies are agenda-driven nests of lefties???

[Bijou Bob]

Yes. Yes I do. But as I explained, I am not anti immigration, I am only urging caution.

Even if the above is fact and unbiased, it relates to a period where we were seeing significant economic growth in the UK. The situation now is wholly different.

[Lord Kangana]

So George is doing a bad job?

[Bijou Bob]

Where did you draw that inference from??!

[thebish]

Yes. Yes I do. But as I explained, I am not anti immigration, I am only urging caution.

I've never suggested you are anti-immigration - I'm only asking for something to justify your claim that the next immigration event will self-evidently take a huge wedge out of the UK economy. I don't think it self-evidently will at all! But I would take into consideration any kind of research that concludes that it would..

[Lord Kangana]

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the economy being bad now, but being good previously. No?

[thebish]

So George is doing a bad job?

David Cameron picked him as Chancellor. this is fun!

[Bijou Bob]

You feel the economy is currently in fine fettle LK?

I'm sure if I could be arsed to look around the right wing think tanks Bish, I could find statistics galore to back my gut feeling. They wouldn't lend it much credibility as no one knows what the impact will be.

A potential sixty thousand multiplied by twenty six grand is a fair wedge in my book. Add in housing, health and other social costs and I would suggest it is a cost we cannot currently afford in terms of finance or resource.

[thebish]

You feel the economy is currently in fine fettle LK?

I'm sure if I could be arsed to look around the right wing think tanks Bish, I could find statistics galore to back my gut feeling.

you might find "statistics" - (as in wild figures with no basis guessed by the daily mail) - but I doubt you could find actual serious research galore that backs up your gut feeling..

just share two of them with me - I AM interested...

[Lord Kangana]

So George is doing a bad job?

David Cameron picked him as Chancellor. this is fun!

In this new found spirit of magnanimity that you're fostering, I take it you are endorsing both the Premiership of Cameron and the Spreadsheets of Osbourne?

Surely bish, surely, all they need is time, and not for panic fannies like your good self to keep criticising them? Surely? Eh?

[thebish]

So George is doing a bad job?

David Cameron picked him as Chancellor. this is fun!

In this new found spirit of magnanimity that you're fostering, I take it you are endorsing both the Premiership of Cameron and the Spreadsheets of Osbourne?

eh? you take it wrong! (as usual)

I thought this was a new round of the new "who picked who game", is all. I think I win!

Mornington Crescent!

[Bijou Bob]

Ah, so you're suggesting that whilst left wing/liberal think tank statistics are believable, those suggested from an opposite political perspective are not?

[thebish]

Ah, so you're suggesting that whilst left wing/liberal think tank statistics are believable, those suggested from an opposite political perspective are not?

no - I just doubt they exist! show me one!!

[Lord Kangana]

So George is doing a bad job?

David Cameron picked him as Chancellor. this is fun!

In this new found spirit of magnanimity that you're fostering, I take it you are endorsing both the Premiership of Cameron and the Spreadsheets of Osbourne?

eh? you take it wrong! (as usual)

I thought this was a new round of the new "who picked who game", is all. I think I win!

Mornington Crescent!

Ah. I see. Your old age is getting you confused again. The game wasn't who was picked by whom, it was who signed who(m). And then who played them.

So, for example, manager A signs player B. Player B is rubbish. So is manager A. So manager A is sacked. Then manager C arrives and re-signs player B. Player B is still rubbish (so is manager A, by the way). This is now manager C's fault, because despite manager A signing Player B for an inordinate amount of money, the act of resigning player B is entirely manager C's fault. Manager C is sacked, partly because of the input of players such as player A, and partly because manager C quite literally wouldn't know where to start with organising a pissup in a brewery. And manager D takes over. Subsequently (almost inevitably given the cosmic order of things) player B suffers a lapse in shitness for a couple of games and is lauded as the new messiah. For this week. Which manager is at fault now?

Clearer now?