Well, unless you are arguing for completely open borders, everyone thinks there should be controls on immigration.
Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.
It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.
From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.
It must strange be so arrogant as to genuinely believe you are so vastly superior to the majority of the population who only exist to serve as disposable labour for you.
Blimey - all I do is quote your own words back at you and you go off on one.
"They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Nope you misquoted. A very common tactic from you when you cannot argue any other way.
Saying an idea is simplistic is not the same as saying people are simpletons. It is only arrogant elitists like you who believe they are the same.
As I said you have some simplistic ideas as well. You display them daily on here.
Saying an idea is simplistic and that people believe those ideas is not to call them simpletons.
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their famat them.
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
Because they believe (wrongly in my opinion) that immigrants are taking jobs. They also believe they are taking housing and putting a strain on vital services. They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.
It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society.
From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.
And in a sentence you have encapsulated why the Remain side lost the referendum!
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
There's a difference between simplistic ideas and simpletons.
The law of supply and demand is pretty simplistic but its at the heart of economic system.
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
Nope. I believe the idea is simplistic. You believe simplistic ideas as well - like the economy is the most important thing in people's lives or that GDP growth is good even when it means GDP per capita is lower.
These are simplistic (and wrong) ideas but I would not call you a simpleton. There are far too many other terms I could use for you.
Nah - not even close.
You said that the Leavers believed a simplistic idea. Ergo they are simpletons.
What I believe about the economy and GDP (pause for chuckle at your adoption of the hard left's dismissal of GDP as being any kind of relevant measure) you would take 10,000 years to understand.
Well clearly you are a simpleton as you fail to understand even the basics of logic and language. Of course I don't actually believe that. I just believe you said something stupid you can't now take back and are having to try to defend an idiotic comment.
Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago. It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
Honestly?
Mr Restricted Supply of workers drives higher wages and Mrs Less competition for scarce public services would like to meet you, to understand how anyone couldn't understand that unrestricted EU immigration can make life worse for many groups.
I thought we'd moved on from this, anyway, Mr Gardenwalker wrote a very good post ceding the 'immigration is wonderful' position a couple of weeks ago.
If you pursue that logic whilst ignoring the value added to the economy, taxation and public services by immigrants, you are arguing for a de-populated UK.
Good grief. Remainers are channeling their inner Bourbon tonight. The UK economy did very well for itself in the 80s and 90s with very low levels of net migration. Immigrants aren't some miracle ingredient.
Our GDP/capita has slid sideways - we've grown our economy by simply adding workers. 'Make or Buy' is a common enough business decision. We've made the decision to buy our labour, rather than improve productivity or train our own folk. It's wonderful for businesses.
One of the quotes from the EUref which has stayed with me was someone yelling 'That's your bloody GDP' when one of the talking heads was quoting tractor statistics about the economy.
Let's say the referendum is overturned. A lot of the influx of EU workers was driven by the EZ economy struggling post-crash. What are we going to do when it's our turn to be in a slump and all our imported workers bugger off to Germany?
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
Cutting EU immigration is the one Brexit principle that is non negotiable for most Leave voters beyond of course actually leaving the EU
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their famat them.
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
Because they believe (wrongly in my opinion) that immigrants are taking jobs. They also believe they are taking housing and putting a strain on vital services. They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.
It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society.
From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.
And in a sentence you have encapsulated why the Remain side lost the referendum!
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
There's a difference between simplistic ideas and simpletons.
The law of supply and demand is pretty simplistic but its at the heart of economic system.
methinks you should get thee to a thesaurus.
You mean simple, not simplistic - the two are not synonymous (oh dear).
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
People don't need to "accurately judge" it - they just need to believe it.
Yes, that's a valid point. It was the "accurately judge" that caught my eye.
There's trouble brewing though - either immigration won't come down as promised post-brexit or if it does come down it isn't going to improve the lot of anyone.
Or even that it does come down, but as the immigrants spread around the country more widely they become more noticeable.
Not sure that will be a negative tbh. The most anti-immigrant friends and relatives I have live in rural areas like North Dorset / South Somerset, North Yorkshire, the Scottish Borders, Oxfordshire. Those in London, Leeds, Halifax, Bristol, Brighton don't find it an issue (admittedly that does include some who are themselves immigrants).
It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
People don't need to "accurately judge" it - they just need to believe it.
Yes, that's a valid point. It was the "accurately judge" that caught my eye.
There's trouble brewing though - either immigration won't come down as promised post-brexit or if it does come down it isn't going to improve the lot of anyone.
Or even that it does come down, but as the immigrants spread around the country more widely they become more noticeable.
If we had US gun laws, Mao's observation might resonate here. Thankfully, we do not so things will be less bloody than that, at least physically.
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
Nope. I believe the idea is simplistic. You believe simplistic ideas as well - like the economy is the most important thing in people's lives or that GDP growth is good even when it means GDP per capita is lower.
These are simplistic (and wrong) ideas but I would not call you a simpleton. There are far too many other terms I could use for you.
Nah - not even close.
You said that the Leavers believed a simplistic idea. Ergo they are simpletons.
What I believe about the economy and GDP (pause for chuckle at your adoption of the hard left's dismissal of GDP as being any kind of relevant measure) you would take 10,000 years to understand.
Well clearly you are a simpleton as you fail to understand even the basics of logic and language. Of course I don't actually believe that. I just believe you said something stupid you can't now take back and are having to try to defend an idiotic comment.
You dolt. These are your words:
"They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.
"It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society."
And you say that you are not calling those people, who believe "rather simplistic" ideas, simplistic.
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
arrogant twerp
I agree, they are, but they are our fellow citizens so we shouldn't be too hard on them.
I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
You are having a fucking laugh aren't you? Which exact bit of open countryside is polluted by immigrants? Which exactly?
Well immigration tends to occur into cities, which means the pre existing population heads out to the burbs and sticks more. It's all well and good, but obviously everyone needs a house or flat. The field next to old the missus' old nag is now being developed for housing (And what a message they are making of the road !), it's not really immigrants that are the issue (Their general favour for high density housing is a definite boon in my eyes) more other people in general no matter where they're from Astrophotography is also a bit of a hobby of mine. Fundamentally more people = poorer quality skies at night..
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their famat them.
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
Because they believe (wrongly in my opinion) that immigrants are taking jobs. They also believe they are taking housing and putting a strain on vital services. They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.
It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society.
From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.
And in a sentence you have encapsulated why the Remain side lost the referendum!
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
There's a difference between simplistic ideas and simpletons.
The law of supply and demand is pretty simplistic but its at the heart of economic system.
methinks you should get thee to a thesaurus.
You mean simple, not simplistic - the two are not synonymous (oh dear).
You're sinking even worse than when you claimed that house prices had fallen since the Referendum.
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
You are having a fucking laugh aren't you? Which exact bit of open countryside is polluted by immigrants? Which exactly?
Well immigration tends to occur into cities, which means the pre existing population heads out to the burbs and sticks more. It's all well and good, but obviously everyone needs a house or flat. The field next to old the missus' old nag is now being developed for housing (And what a message they are making of the road !), it's not really immigrants that are the issue (Their general favour for high density housing is a definite boon in my eyes) more other people in general no matter where they're from Astrophotography is also a bit of a hobby of mine. Fundamentally more people = poorer quality skies at night..
Thank you. It's not really immigrants that are the issue. I agree entirely.
But you see how even you can easily, because it rolls off the tongue/keyboard, fall into the trap of blaming immigrants for things which, simply (!), are not their fault.
Well, unless you are arguing for completely open borders, everyone thinks there should be controls on immigration.
Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.
It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.
A Dutch migrant is perhaps less likely to migrate for welfare purposes or to access free healthcare or to get free housing or improve their earnings - they can get that if they stay where they are.
More poor competing against the existing poor for low wage jobs, public services and housing may be good for some but perhaps not for the existing poor.
But that isn't a problem for the I'm alright Jack remoaner classes living in the nicer parts of London and the south east who can afford to avoid the consequences and social impacts of policies they promote. So they can afford to sneer - cos it's not their problem.
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
Nope. I believe the idea is simplistic. You believe simplistic ideas as well - like the economy is the most important thing in people's lives or that GDP growth is good even when it means GDP per capita is lower.
These are simplistic (and wrong) ideas but I would not call you a simpleton. There are far too many other terms I could use for you.
Nah - not even close.
You said that the Leavers believed a simplistic idea. Ergo they are simpletons.
What I believe about the economy and GDP (pause for chuckle at your adoption of the hard left's dismissal of GDP as being any kind of relevant measure) you would take 10,000 years to understand.
Well clearly you are a simpleton as you fail to understand even the basics of logic and language. Of course I don't actually believe that. I just believe you said something stupid you can't now take back and are having to try to defend an idiotic comment.
You dolt. These are your words:
"They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.
"It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society."
And you say that you are not calling those people, who believe "rather simplistic" ideas, simplistic.
What a fuckwit.
You did not say 'simplistic'. You said 'simpleton'. If you have to lie about your own words you really are getting desperate.
Even very clever people (and of course I don't include you in that category) can 'treat complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are'. And yes that is the very definition of simplistic. That does not make them simpletons.
Given your oft stated view of millions of people in this country I would suggest you look up the words 'arrogant prick'. Or better still, look in a mirror.
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
Yes,
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
And, you know, there is no such thing as the eco
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their famat them.
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
Because they believe (wrongly in my opinion) that immigrants are taking jobs. They also believe they are taking housing and putting a strain on vital services. They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.
It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society.
From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.
And in a sentence you have encapsulated why the Remain side lost the referendum!
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
There's a difference between simplistic ideas and simpletons.
The law of supply and demand is pretty simplistic but its at the heart of economic system.
methinks you should get thee to a thesaurus.
You mean simple, not simplistic - the two are not synonymous (oh dear).
You're sinking even worse than when you claimed that house prices had fallen since the Referendum.
Zing!! That's it - you've got me! I might resign my PB membership. House prices are growing at a lower rate and, in metropolitan, remain-voting, elitist London, are expected to fall.
But hang onto that house price shocker from me if it gives you comfort.
Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
Nope. I believe the idea is simplistic. You believe simplistic ideas as well - like the economy is the most important thing in people's lives or that GDP growth is good even when it means GDP per capita is lower.
These are simplistic (and wrong) ideas but I would not call you a simpleton. There are far too many other terms I could use for you.
Nah - not even close.
You said that the Leavers believed a simplistic idea. Ergo they are simpletons.
What I believe about the economy and GDP (pause for chuckle at your adoption of the hard left's dismissal of GDP as being any kind of relevant measure) you would take 10,000 years to understand.
Well clearly you are a simpleton as you fail to understand even the basics of logic and language. Of course I don't actually believe that. I just believe you said something stupid you can't now take back and are having to try to defend an idiotic comment.
You dolt. These are your words:
"They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.
"It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society."
And you say that you are not calling those people, who believe "rather simplistic" ideas, simplistic.
What a fuckwit.
You did not say 'simplistic'. You said 'simpleton'. If you have to lie about your own words you really are getting desperate.
Even very clever people (and of course I don't include you in that category) can 'treat complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are'. And yes that is the very definition of simplistic. That does not make them simpletons.
Given your oft stated view of millions of people in this country I would suggest you look up the words 'arrogant prick'. Or better still, look in a mirror.
You can wriggle all you like, Richard. You told us that you think Leavers believed "rather simplistic" ideas. Now, you say that doesn't make them simpletons. I of course don't know what goes on in the wide open spaces of your brain, but I do smile at your outrage at my use of the word simpleton to describe someone who, according to you, believes simplistic ideas.
Well, unless you are arguing for completely open borders, everyone thinks there should be controls on immigration.
Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.
It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.
I completely agree. We seem to be having a nervous breakdown at the prospect of managing immigration, when it should simply be part of our economic planning (and, ha ha, our industrial strategy, whatever the hell that is). I appreciate the HO appears to be shambolic at times, but that's a process issue; the principle is sound enough.
Just a reminder for our younger readers (are there any?); net migration for the 18 years of Tory government was 140k, which is a tad under 8k.
It was 140k in 1998 and never dropped below that again.
I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
You are having a fucking laugh aren't you? Which exact bit of open countryside is polluted by immigrants? Which exactly?
Well immigration tends to occur into cities, which means the pre existing population heads out to the burbs and sticks more. It's all well and good, but obviously everyone needs a house or flat. The field next to old the missus' old nag is now being developed for housing (And what a message they are making of the road !), it's not really immigrants that are the issue (Their general favour for high density housing is a definite boon in my eyes) more other people in general no matter where they're from Astrophotography is also a bit of a hobby of mine. Fundamentally more people = poorer quality skies at night..
Spot on. The Topping fallacy here is encapsulated in the not very funny old joke about a couple of peasants who have a horse which is just fractionally too tall to fit under a bridge so peasant A says tell you what, we'll get the farrier to take his shoes off and peasant B says What good will that do? it's his head that's the problem, not his feet.
I am going to get some t shirts printed up with OUTWITTED BY SIMPLETONS and sell them on here, the PB Remainers will be mad for them.
Well, unless you are arguing for completely open borders, everyone thinks there should be controls on immigration.
Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.
It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.
I think that, as you imply, assimilation is key and what that means to each native Brit will determine his/ her view on immigration.
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
It's the modern world, pal.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago. It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
That's a rhetorical question.
Mass migration means downward pressure on wages ( for some people) and upward pressure on rents and public services (for some people). It means some people feel like strangers in the places they have lived in for a long time. And it means that restrictions on freedom of expression must be imposed, so that the immigrants can feel happier in their new country.
One can argue that those who lose out deserve their fate; and /or the greater good outweighs their concerns, but it's pointless to say that there are no losers.
Well, unless you are arguing for completely open borders, everyone thinks there should be controls on immigration.
Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.
It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.
To pick my words very carefully, in Newham more than 40% of the population now lives in the private rented sector and, according to Sir Robin Wales, three-bedroom terrace house containing 20 or more adults are far from uncommon.
We have created new slums for the 21st Century - yes, they aren't the same as the slums of old when they were inhabited by whole families. The modern slum is almost exclusively male and many of these are migrants, both EU and non-EU.
The problem is people from other parts of the EU who come to the UK "looking for work". Many find gainful and productive employment, no doubt, but there are undoubtedly those who fall into the black or at best grey economy not assimilating or integrating and living on a cash handout basis from which the bed in their terrace semi in Forest Gate or Canning Town has to be funded.
There are also those for whom the UK is a magnet in terms of criminality and making money illegally or through violence - only a very small number of course.
The population rise strains the infrastructure - tubes are full, the local GP sees a near 50% increase in registrations in the past three years and crime is rising at a time when Police numbers are being reduced and, like Pharaoh, we build our monuments using foreign labour.
My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere.
I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
You are having a fucking laugh aren't you? Which exact bit of open countryside is polluted by immigrants? Which exactly?
Well immigration tends to occur into cities, which means the pre existing population heads out to the burbs and sticks more. It's all well and good, but obviously everyone needs a house or flat. The field next to old the missus' old nag is now being developed for housing (And what a message they are making of the road !), it's not really immigrants that are the issue (Their general favour for high density housing is a definite boon in my eyes) more other people in general no matter where they're from Astrophotography is also a bit of a hobby of mine. Fundamentally more people = poorer quality skies at night..
Spot on. The Topping fallacy here is encapsulated in the not very funny old joke about a couple of peasants who have a horse which is just fractionally too tall to fit under a bridge so peasant A says tell you what, we'll get the farrier to take his shoes off and peasant B says What good will that do? it's his head that's the problem, not his feet.
I am going to get some t shirts printed up with OUTWITTED BY SIMPLETONS and sell them on here, the PB Remainers will be mad for them.
Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
As you say, there’s little evidence to suggest that immigration *has* held down wages, even for low skilled jobs.
However, the constant references to “car washers” on here seem to imply a subtly different problem: that the easy reliance on cheap, unskilled labour has stifled productivity growth.
Higher productivity growth would of course in turn manifest as higher wages, but the effect is more indirect than simple labour demand/supply and perhaps academics haven’t been looking at it.
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
It's the modern world, pal.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
It's a choice one makes, dressed up as something which is inevitable.
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
arrogant twerp
I agree, they are, but they are our fellow citizens so we shouldn't be too hard on them.
We're in London Weds/Thurs (trains permitting) for an overnighter to see Iolanthe at the Coliseum - got an afternoon and a morning spare... anyone recommend any exhibitions worth visiting? Cheers!
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
It's the modern world, pal.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
It's a choice one makes, dressed up as something which is inevitable.
I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
You are having a fucking laugh aren't you? Which exact bit of open countryside is polluted by immigrants? Which exactly?
Well immigration tends to occur into cities, which means the pre existing population heads out to the burbs and sticks more. It's all well and good, but obviously everyone needs a house or flat. The field next to old the missus' old nag is now being developed for housing (And what a message they are making of the road !), it's not really immigrants that are the issue (Their general favour for high density housing is a definite boon in my eyes) more other people in general no matter where they're from Astrophotography is also a bit of a hobby of mine. Fundamentally more people = poorer quality skies at night..
Have you been to the Galloway Forest? Free.of light pollution of not of cloud cover. Galloway generally a very worthwhile place to visit.
Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
arrogant twerp
I agree, they are, but they are our fellow citizens so we shouldn't be too hard on them.
My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.
Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
We're in London Weds/Thurs (trains permitting) for an overnighter to see Iolanthe at the Coliseum - got an afternoon and a morning spare... anyone recommend any exhibitions worth visiting? Cheers!
You get a live view of one of the great natural disasters - London and snow.
Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
Although it’s pretty clear that it was Immigration “wot won it” let’s not forget there’s always been a strong strain of Eurosceptism in the country that predates the very high levels of immigration we saw post 97.
@faisalislam: ... and meanwhile Sir John Major is also planning an intervention on Wednesday - we haven’t heard much from him since he heavily criticised the then prospect of a Tory-DUP deal re n Irish peace
I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
You are having a fucking laugh aren't you? Which exact bit of open countryside is polluted by immigrants? Which exactly?
Well immigration tends to occur into cities, which means the pre existing population heads out to the burbs and sticks more. It's all well and good, but obviously everyone needs a house or flat. The field next to old the missus' old nag is now being developed for housing (And what a message they are making of the road !), it's not really immigrants that are the issue (Their general favour for high density housing is a definite boon in my eyes) more other people in general no matter where they're from Astrophotography is also a bit of a hobby of mine. Fundamentally more people = poorer quality skies at night..
Have you been to the Galloway Forest? Free.of light pollution of not of cloud cover. Galloway generally a very worthwhile place to visit.
Not yet, I took a holiday last year near St Clears/ Llangynin in Wales though. A very pretty part of the UK. I hope Galloway and Kielder keep their darkness though - unfortunately the Milky Way isn't all that visible from Surprise View between Sheffield and Manchester these days in my opinion.
We're in London Weds/Thurs (trains permitting) for an overnighter to see Iolanthe at the Coliseum - got an afternoon and a morning spare... anyone recommend any exhibitions worth visiting? Cheers!
You get a live view of one of the great natural disasters - London and snow.
Haha - seen it once or twice before during many years working in London. I am looking for an alternative to Mrs. P's propsoed shopping expedition
Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
I think you've replied to the wrong comment.
Perhaps you should call it a night Toppo I fear you've either had too much or too little.
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
It's the modern world, pal.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
It's a choice one makes, dressed up as something which is inevitable.
You make your choice. I make mine.
And Kim Jong-un makes his.
I daresay he does.
But, there are many states between complete economic integration with one's neighbours and complete isolationism. It's not a binary choice.
Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
The problem is that - while ty (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
Although it’s pretty clear that it was Immigration “wot won it” let’s not forget there’s always been a strong strain of Eurosceptism in the country that predates the very high levels of immigration we saw post 97.
Of course. Mild scepticism was probably however the predominant view until people were asked to put those views into focus. The flim-flam on immigration by Leavers is just an amusing side-show.
A reminder to everyone on here who attaches far too much importance to news stories.
We were told the public didn't care about the Corbyn "Czech spy story" - well guess what - only 3% of people are even aware of the story - irrespective of what they think of it.
The detail of what Corbyn said today won't matter in the slightest. All that could matter is if there is a perception that he is moving in a way that people like / dislike.
Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
The problem is that - while there
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
I think you've replied to the wrong comment.
Perhaps you should call it a night Toppo I fear you've either had too much or too little.
Sozza.
I took your comment: "Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects" to refer to low-skilled EU immigration and hence had thought my reply relevant.
"While there are no direct measurements of temperature there, Zack Labe, a climate scientist working on his PhD at the University of California at Irvine, confirmed that several independent analyses showed “it was very close to freezing,”
So basically they have modelled this but not actually measured it.
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
It's the modern world, pal.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
It's the modern world, pal.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.
Presumably if the Baltics et al were so convinced that the EU was causing a population exodus, they would be in favour of leaving the EU or perhaps getting rid of FOM.
You can wriggle all you like, Richard. You told us that you think Leavers believed "rather simplistic" ideas. Now, you say that doesn't make them simpletons. I of course don't know what goes on in the wide open spaces of your brain, but I do smile at your outrage at my use of the word simpleton to describe someone who, according to you, believes simplistic ideas.
In which case the best word to describe you is ignoramus as you seem incapable of actually looking up what two words mean and realising the difference between them.
Like I said, if you have to resort to lying about what you wrote then you have clearly lost the argument and the plot.
Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects. Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
Although it’s pretty clear that it was Immigration “wot won it” let’s not forget there’s always been a strong strain of Eurosceptism in the country that predates the very high levels of immigration we saw post 97.
Indeed Euroscepticism was high in the early Eighties, when there was a popular show about boozed up British builders living in a multiple occupancy hostel in the EU:
Well, unless you are arguing for completely open borders, everyone thinks there should be controls on immigration.
Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.
It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.
I completely agree. We seem to be having a nervous breakdown at the prospect of managing immigration, when it should simply be part of our economic planning (and, ha ha, our industrial strategy, whatever the hell that is). I appreciate the HO appears to be shambolic at times, but that's a process issue; the principle is sound enough.
Just a reminder for our younger readers (are there any?); net migration for the 18 years of Tory government was 140k, which is a tad under 8k.
It was 140k in 1998 and never dropped below that again.
There were certainly plenty of people wanting to leave the country during those 18 years.
My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.
Presumably if the Baltics et al were so convinced that the EU was causing a population exodus, they would be in favour of leaving the EU or perhaps getting rid of FOM.
But they aren’t.
In the Baltic states the trend is clearly driven primarily by ethnic Russians emigrating.
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
arrogant twerp
I agree, they are, but they are our fellow citizens so we shouldn't be too hard on them.
It's all got a bit Punch & Judy on here again tonight (oh no it hasnt!; oh yes it has!)
Is that because none of us (Leavers or Remainers) are feeling prticularly happy about the state of play?
I am not happy with Corbyn's ideas that is true. But my back and forth is because I genuinely believe that Topping is an arrogant prick who uses dishonesty in place of rational argument.
You can wriggle all you like, Richard. You told us that you think Leavers believed "rather simplistic" ideas. Now, you say that doesn't make them simpletons. I of course don't know what goes on in the wide open spaces of your brain, but I do smile at your outrage at my use of the word simpleton to describe someone who, according to you, believes simplistic ideas.
In which case the best word to describe you is ignoramus as you seem incapable of actually looking up what two words mean and realising the difference between them.
Like I said, if you have to resort to lying about what you wrote then you have clearly lost the argument and the plot.
We're not talking about what I wrote, sweetpea, but about what you wrote.
You wrote that Leavers believed "rather simplistic ideas". Then you go off on one at me because I say that this is essentially calling them simpletons.
There are virtually no immigrants at all within 10 miles of where I live, if that's the question, and if there were they wouldn't be competing with me for anything (except parking spaces). The thing is, I make an effort to understand the motivations of people in different circumstances from me rather than indulge in this I'm alright Jack pointing at them and laughing which you think is so clever and attractive.
My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.
communism = enforced, unprotected copulation. I had wondered about Jeremy's motivation.
It's all got a bit Punch & Judy on here again tonight (oh no it hasnt!; oh yes it has!)
Is that because none of us (Leavers or Remainers) are feeling prticularly happy about the state of play?
I am not happy with Corbyn's ideas that is true. But my back and forth is because I genuinely believe that Topping is an arrogant prick who uses dishonesty in place of rational argument.
It's all got a bit Punch & Judy on here again tonight (oh no it hasnt!; oh yes it has!)
Is that because none of us (Leavers or Remainers) are feeling prticularly happy about the state of play?
The problems are (variously) that the government is inept and divided, that the Opposition is worse, that some Remainers want to see this country punished for the way that it voted, and that some Brexiteers are only happy when they're in opposition, and would prefer see Brexit fall, if it's not their Brexit.
My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.
Presumably if the Baltics et al were so convinced that the EU was causing a population exodus, they would be in favour of leaving the EU or perhaps getting rid of FOM.
But they aren’t.
In the Baltic states the trend is clearly driven primarily by ethnic Russians emigrating.
Its clearly caused by Latvians emigrating too. That's a marked and accelerating drop in the Latvian population there - let alone having natural population growth which should be expected in normal circumstances.
My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.
Presumably if the Baltics et al were so convinced that the EU was causing a population exodus, they would be in favour of leaving the EU or perhaps getting rid of FOM.
But they aren’t.
According to Mortimer, the Baltic states should be happy with their reducing populations: their versions of Mr "Restricted Supply of workers drives higher wages" and Mrs "Less competition for scarce public services" will be delighted
However, even she supports the Customs Union stance.
Chukka wants it to be the route to staying in the SM. It's as far as Flint will go on CU/SM I expect. So there looks to me to be a majority in the commons for a CU but not SM (So long as the Tories can maintain some semblance of discipline)
There are virtually no immigrants at all within 10 miles of where I live, if that's the question, and if there were they wouldn't be competing with me for anything (except parking spaces). The thing is, I make an effort to understand the motivations of people in different circumstances from me rather than indulge in this I'm alright Jack pointing at them and laughing which you think is so clever and attractive.
Don't you keep banging on about how you go with the Beaufort?
And as @Pulpstar has agreed, he didn't mean what he said when he said he thought immigrants would somehow make (access to? availability of?) open countryside more difficult. So I was examining his motivations and we agreed that it was nothing to do with immigration.
This is the gift that keeps giving and in this instance, is perfect for you:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
It's the modern world, pal.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
I think you've replied to the wrong comment.
Perhaps you should call it a night Toppo I fear you've either had too much or too little.
Sozza.
I took your comment: "Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects" to refer to low-skilled EU immigration and hence had thought my reply relevant.
My comment was in response to Robert's and referred to the type of immigrant.
So the more limited the skillset in the more high cost the country will not even be 'taking jobs' but be dependent upon welfare.
If you listened to some on here,you would think we don't get any bad immigration.
I use to believe that the tories were the one's on those who lose out deserve their fate but the last twenty years the labour party have taken that prize.
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first p leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
It's the modern world, pal.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
precautions = marginalisation
hmm - so now we are going to be out we'll be fairly marginalised. And, as Robert has noted, will take years to recreate, for example, the trade deals that we had and had a hand in devising.
Another possible indirect consequence of this is that the EU might start being more obstructionist in their negotiations with the government, in the hope/expectation of hastening its downfall, and bringing about what they see as a more sensible approach from Labour.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
I think you've replied to the wrong comment.
Perhaps you should call it a night Toppo I fear you've either had too much or too little.
Sozza.
I took your comment: "Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects" to refer to low-skilled EU immigration and hence had thought my reply relevant.
My comment was in response to Robert's and referred to the type of immigrant.
So the more limited the skillset in the more high cost the country will not even be 'taking jobs' but be dependent upon welfare.
Do you want a moment to edit that? Because I'm not sure it makes sense.
I'll hang around a minute or two longer if you want.
Or are you saying that it is a different kind of immigration, not the "other" type of immigration. Or...
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
It's the modern world, pal.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
There are virtually no immigrants at all within 10 miles of where I live, if that's the question, and if there were they wouldn't be competing with me for anything (except parking spaces). The thing is, I make an effort to understand the motivations of people in different circumstances from me rather than indulge in this I'm alright Jack pointing at them and laughing which you think is so clever and attractive.
Don't you keep banging on about how you go with the Beaufort?
And as @Pulpstar has agreed, he didn't mean what he said when he said he thought immigrants would somehow make (access to? availability of?) open countryside more difficult. So I was examining his motivations and we agreed that it was nothing to do with immigration.
This is the gift that keeps giving and in this instance, is perfect for you:
No, I have said exactly once that I have hunted with the Beaufort, and motorised horse transport is a thing.
I think that on any given evening you should either drink, or (exclusive or) post because Pulpstar won the argument you think you won, and I have just clearly said that I *don't* see any way that immigrants do or could ruin my life.
My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.
Presumably if the Baltics et al were so convinced that the EU was causing a population exodus, they would be in favour of leaving the EU or perhaps getting rid of FOM.
But they aren’t.
In the Baltic states the trend is clearly driven primarily by ethnic Russians emigrating.
Its clearly caused by Latvians emigrating too. That's a marked and accelerating drop in the Latvian population there - let alone having natural population growth which should be expected in normal circumstances.
The prospects for the Baltic States are frightening, unless people start returning in large numbers. What's strange is that they are great places to live in.
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.
I even include immigration in that.
as that.
It's just as simple as that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
It's the modern world, pal.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
precautionsbrexit = marginalisation
Corrected for you
I mean in the EU we had some opt-outs and some never will opt-ins and that, in @ReggieCide's view, is marginalisation which he said as though it was a bad thing.
So he prefers to be out of the EU altogether which will what...solve the marginalisation issue??
Comments
Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.
It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.
Logic fail, sunshine.
The law of supply and demand is pretty simplistic but its at the heart of economic system.
Our GDP/capita has slid sideways - we've grown our economy by simply adding workers. 'Make or Buy' is a common enough business decision. We've made the decision to buy our labour, rather than improve productivity or train our own folk. It's wonderful for businesses.
One of the quotes from the EUref which has stayed with me was someone yelling 'That's your bloody GDP' when one of the talking heads was quoting tractor statistics about the economy.
Let's say the referendum is overturned. A lot of the influx of EU workers was driven by the EZ economy struggling post-crash. What are we going to do when it's our turn to be in a slump and all our imported workers bugger off to Germany?
You mean simple, not simplistic - the two are not synonymous (oh dear).
"They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.
"It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society."
And you say that you are not calling those people, who believe "rather simplistic" ideas, simplistic.
What a fuckwit.
Astrophotography is also a bit of a hobby of mine. Fundamentally more people = poorer quality skies at night..
But you see how even you can easily, because it rolls off the tongue/keyboard, fall into the trap of blaming immigrants for things which, simply (!), are not their fault.
More poor competing against the existing poor for low wage jobs, public services and housing may be good for some but perhaps not for the existing poor.
But that isn't a problem for the I'm alright Jack remoaner classes living in the nicer parts of London and the south east who can afford to avoid the consequences and social impacts of policies they promote. So they can afford to sneer - cos it's not their problem.
Even very clever people (and of course I don't include you in that category) can 'treat complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are'. And yes that is the very definition of simplistic. That does not make them simpletons.
Given your oft stated view of millions of people in this country I would suggest you look up the words 'arrogant prick'. Or better still, look in a mirror.
But hang onto that house price shocker from me if it gives you comfort.
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
Just a reminder for our younger readers (are there any?); net migration for the 18 years of Tory government was 140k, which is a tad under 8k.
It was 140k in 1998 and never dropped below that again.
I am going to get some t shirts printed up with OUTWITTED BY SIMPLETONS and sell them on here, the PB Remainers will be mad for them.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/968210209427599360
Mass migration means downward pressure on wages ( for some people) and upward pressure on rents and public services (for some people). It means some people feel like strangers in the places they have lived in for a long time. And it means that restrictions on freedom of expression must be imposed, so that the immigrants can feel happier in their new country.
One can argue that those who lose out deserve their fate; and /or the greater good outweighs their concerns, but it's pointless to say that there are no losers.
We have created new slums for the 21st Century - yes, they aren't the same as the slums of old when they were inhabited by whole families. The modern slum is almost exclusively male and many of these are migrants, both EU and non-EU.
The problem is people from other parts of the EU who come to the UK "looking for work". Many find gainful and productive employment, no doubt, but there are undoubtedly those who fall into the black or at best grey economy not assimilating or integrating and living on a cash handout basis from which the bed in their terrace semi in Forest Gate or Canning Town has to be funded.
There are also those for whom the UK is a magnet in terms of criminality and making money illegally or through violence - only a very small number of course.
The population rise strains the infrastructure - tubes are full, the local GP sees a near 50% increase in registrations in the past three years and crime is rising at a time when Police numbers are being reduced and, like Pharaoh, we build our monuments using foreign labour.
My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere.
That's not the EU I wanted.
However, the constant references to “car washers” on here seem to imply a subtly different problem: that the easy reliance on cheap, unskilled labour has stifled productivity growth.
Higher productivity growth would of course in turn manifest as higher wages, but the effect is more indirect than simple labour demand/supply and perhaps academics haven’t been looking at it.
https://twitter.com/CarolineFlintMP/status/968208027957460992
You make your choice. I make mine.
We're in London Weds/Thurs (trains permitting) for an overnighter to see Iolanthe at the Coliseum - got an afternoon and a morning spare... anyone recommend any exhibitions worth visiting? Cheers!
http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/forest-parks/galloway-forest-park/dark-skies
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
Perhaps you should call it a night Toppo I fear you've either had too much or too little.
But, there are many states between complete economic integration with one's neighbours and complete isolationism. It's not a binary choice.
I took your comment: "Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects" to refer to low-skilled EU immigration and hence had thought my reply relevant.
You should read your links.
"While there are no direct measurements of temperature there, Zack Labe, a climate scientist working on his PhD at the University of California at Irvine, confirmed that several independent analyses showed “it was very close to freezing,”
So basically they have modelled this but not actually measured it.
Right.
Is that because none of us (Leavers or Remainers) are feeling prticularly happy about the state of play?
But they aren’t.
Like I said, if you have to resort to lying about what you wrote then you have clearly lost the argument and the plot.
https://youtu.be/3tklaMNH7IA
Of course, this will probably result in a poll boost for the Conservatives just to confound us all (again).
You wrote that Leavers believed "rather simplistic ideas". Then you go off on one at me because I say that this is essentially calling them simpletons.
You then wriggle, and you are still wriggling.
Its a malaise which affects the political situation over much of the first world.
There are virtually no immigrants at all within 10 miles of where I live, if that's the question, and if there were they wouldn't be competing with me for anything (except parking spaces). The thing is, I make an effort to understand the motivations of people in different circumstances from me rather than indulge in this I'm alright Jack pointing at them and laughing which you think is so clever and attractive.
I think the stat keeps on getting forgotten is that whilst a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, a majority of Labour votes backed Remain.
I think Corbyn's biggest achievement today is to look pragmatic in contrast to the Tories.
https://twitter.com/LAPDHQ/status/968242731611963392
And as @Pulpstar has agreed, he didn't mean what he said when he said he thought immigrants would somehow make (access to? availability of?) open countryside more difficult. So I was examining his motivations and we agreed that it was nothing to do with immigration.
This is the gift that keeps giving and in this instance, is perfect for you:
thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
Go for it.
So the more limited the skillset in the more high cost the country will not even be 'taking jobs' but be dependent upon welfare.
If you listened to some on here,you would think we don't get any bad immigration.
I use to believe that the tories were the one's on those who lose out deserve their fate but the last twenty years the labour party have taken that prize.
I'll hang around a minute or two longer if you want.
Or are you saying that it is a different kind of immigration, not the "other" type of immigration. Or...
I think that on any given evening you should either drink, or (exclusive or) post because Pulpstar won the argument you think you won, and I have just clearly said that I *don't* see any way that immigrants do or could ruin my life.
So he prefers to be out of the EU altogether which will what...solve the marginalisation issue??
Only it was about David Miliband becoming Prime Minister.