Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Yvette Cooper could come 3rd on 1st preferences yet sti

1235»

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,418

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    People who speed do get punished
    Really? All of them every time?

    When I was on the M6 yesterday doing 70mph I was overtaken dozens if not hundreds of times in a 25 mile stretch. I doubt any of those who overtook me were punished.
    If you offered me universal average speed cameras on our road network (unrealistic, I know) in exchange for us regaining control of immigration, I'd take that.
  • isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,756
    antifrank said:

    On topic, I suspect that Corbyn and Kendall supporters may often not give further preferences, even though they will in reality feel a preference - i'm surprised how often I talk to AV voters who say they won't lower themselves to distinguishing between lesser preferences.

    The long-term ihterest of the party is probably better served by Corbyn winning than by someone else squeaking home by 51% thanks to umpteen second and third preferences. If Corbyn wins we can test out the theory that it will bring in a huge wave of enthusiasm (at the least it should mop up many of the Greens, since the Green Party is so heavily anti-austerity rather than just environmental), and if it goes heavily the other way I think he'd call it a day, whereas if he is pipped at the post by transfers it'll be difficult to lead the party effectively.

    Do you think that the non-Corbynites would be more loyal to Jeremy Corbyn than the Corbynites would be to ABC?
    Corbyn has apparently ignored the Labour whip more than 500 times over the years. He has set a hell of a bar for any dissenters to get over. Has real humour potential though.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,756

    Sandpit said:

    "Favourite to cross the floor if and when Corbyn wins?"

    They have all come up with this "loyal to the Labour party" nonsense.

    This is what led them to 2010 and then 2015.

    There has to be at least one MP or MEP who is thoroughly disillusioned by what's going on in their party right now, and would rather serve under Cameron than Corbyn? Extra points if they feel their seat may be under threat going into the 2020 election under the 1983 manifesto.

    One thing for absolute certain is that Mark Harper, Andrew Feldman and friends would be over the moon if they could pull off the same conference season coup that UKIP managed last year!
    Gisela Stuart?

    "In October 2004, she became the only Labour MP who openly supported the re-election of George W. Bush in that year's US presidential election, arguing "you know where you stand with George and, in today's world, that's much better than rudderless leaders who drift with the prevailing wind."
    Remarkable foresight anticipating Obama like that.
  • isam said:

    Haha you are such a petty bore!

    There is a law against speeding, and those who are caught breaking it are punished.. maybe the punishment is too lenient if people feel its a risk worth taking

    Same goes for illegal immigration. Lets make the punishment for being caught severe enough that its not worth the risk

    Short of the death penalty for being caught (and maybe not even then) that's impossible. This country is so much better to live in than where many are coming from that its worth the risk. No action you take is going to change that.

    I'm proud of that, not ashamed of it.
    isam said:

    Look we both know you made a rick by saying they weren't criminals, and were stumped when I pointed out they were by virtue of being ILLEGAL immigrants.. lets just leave it or you will dig a hole back to Australia trying to win an argument you've already lost

    I actually put another word before the word criminals, I didn't simply use that word. Yes they're by definition criminals that's a truism, but its a law in the same category as speeding to me (potential negative outcomes but rather victimless otherwise) not in the same category as breaking into a home or assaulting somebody (an immediate and direct victim).

    Speeding can kill someone whereas a migrant coming to work here doesn't so is worse.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Amnesty is a mad idea. It just encourages more people to come and evade the authorities for long enough until there's another one. We have an amnesty system anyway (I think its 14 years of avoiding deportation, increased by the Coalition) that should be eliminated. Allowing people to work while they are being processed also causes poor incentives: you can come and earn a lot of money even as a bogus asylum seeker and are turned down, so may as well try regardless.

    The solution to the incoherencies is much quicker deportation: it should not take more than a month or two to process a case with an appeal.
  • JEO said:

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Amnesty is a mad idea. It just encourages more people to come and evade the authorities for long enough until there's another one. We have an amnesty system anyway (I think its 14 years of avoiding deportation, increased by the Coalition) that should be eliminated. Allowing people to work while they are being processed also causes poor incentives: you can come and earn a lot of money even as a bogus asylum seeker and are turned down, so may as well try regardless.

    The solution to the incoherencies is much quicker deportation: it should not take more than a month or two to process a case with an appeal.
    Amnesty could only come if twinned with reforming the system.

    Denying people the right to work but permitting them to say is just absurd. People are coming anyway and can earn a lot of money (from their perspective) working in a cash-in-hand below minimum wage job. All banning the right to work does is force people into the black market.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,258

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The World at One ‏@BBCWorldatOne 10m10 minutes ago
    "I haven't got any ex-Conservatives as part of my campaign" - listen live to Liz Kendall (@leicesterliz) on #wato now http://bbc.in/1UyAzkr

    Ha Ha.

    I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Miss Kendall, the abuse she's received from her own side for daring to ask some uncomfortable questions has been quite horrific. Favourite to cross the floor if and when Corbyn wins?
    Surely not - quite apart from anything else, and the abililty of tribal supporters to remain supporters even if the ruling clique are far removed from themselves, as Corbyn himself shows, Corbyn is not expected to last the distance even if he wins, so she's well placed for a fresh run, or behind Umunna, in a few years if the Left does indeed implode. If they don't though...

    Why would she want to run after the horrible abuse she's been through.
    Vindication, as the hypothetical situation would be that the party had come to its senses, and she could throw that in their faces. But as I say, I consider it more likely she'd fall behind someone else as the new face of the party right.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,252

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Christ,why don't you just come out with it,you want open borders to everyone in the world .

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Good luck on the doorstep with that. The public were strongly anti immigration a couple of years ago in the British Social Attitudes Survey, do you think Calais and the African crisis will have improved that?
  • isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Christ,why don't you just come out with it,you want open borders to everyone in the world .

    We can be more open without total open borders. But I'd rather completely open than completely closed yes.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 496
    "When I was on the M6 yesterday doing 70mph" - noone is going to believe that!
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    notme said:

    Catching up with Phil Hammond's comments.

    Nasty and intemperate.

    He joins Priti Patel on the list of leadership contenders I won't be voting for.

    Come on Mr Eagles,stop being so bloody PC.

    Genghis Khan was a marauder.

    I thought the criticism over swarm was nonsense but I guess I'm taking Hammond's too literally.

    My OED says marauders are thieves and attackers of people.

    I took it he was lumping all illegal immigrants in the marauder category
    But you agree with Hammonds sentiment though on mass immigration from Africa ?

    Broadly yes.

    We need immigration and we need good quality immigrants. But his tone was all wrong and did his case any good.
    As a rule we dont get those good ones from africa, pakistan, bangladesh, romania or Albania.
    We get plenty of good ones from almost all those countries. South African and Nigerian immigramts to the UK for example tend to be very highly skilled. In other cases, like Pakistan and Romania there are a great many educated university graduates and businessmen, although they are outnumbered by low wage workers or non-working spouses.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352

    isam said:

    Haha you are such a petty bore!

    There is a law against speeding, and those who are caught breaking it are punished.. maybe the punishment is too lenient if people feel its a risk worth taking

    Same goes for illegal immigration. Lets make the punishment for being caught severe enough that its not worth the risk

    Short of the death penalty for being caught (and maybe not even then) that's impossible. This country is so much better to live in than where many are coming from that its worth the risk. No action you take is going to change that.

    I'm proud of that, not ashamed of it.
    isam said:

    Look we both know you made a rick by saying they weren't criminals, and were stumped when I pointed out they were by virtue of being ILLEGAL immigrants.. lets just leave it or you will dig a hole back to Australia trying to win an argument you've already lost

    I actually put another word before the word criminals, I didn't simply use that word. Yes they're by definition criminals that's a truism, but its a law in the same category as speeding to me (potential negative outcomes but rather victimless otherwise) not in the same category as breaking into a home or assaulting somebody (an immediate and direct victim).

    Speeding can kill someone whereas a migrant coming to work here doesn't so is worse.
    Whatever
  • Indigo said:

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Good luck on the doorstep with that. The public were strongly anti immigration a couple of years ago in the British Social Attitudes Survey, do you think Calais and the African crisis will have improved that?
    I know I'm in a minority but its an issue I vehemently disagree with the public and my own party on. A large portion of the public may be anti-immigration but a large portion of the public may believe in raising tax rates (so long as it doesn't affect them) and other things I freely disagree with.

    Since when do we all need to agree with the public on everything?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Christ,why don't you just come out with it,you want open borders to everyone in the world .

    We can be more open without total open borders. But I'd rather completely open than completely closed yes.
    In which case you are as batshit crazy as Corbyn.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,325

    On topic, I suspect that Corbyn and Kendall supporters may often not give further preferences, even though they will in reality feel a preference - i'm surprised how often I talk to AV voters who say they won't lower themselves to distinguishing between lesser preferences.

    The long-term ihterest of the party is probably better served by Corbyn winning than by someone else squeaking home by 51% thanks to umpteen second and third preferences. If Corbyn wins we can test out the theory that it will bring in a huge wave of enthusiasm (at the least it should mop up many of the Greens, since the Green Party is so heavily anti-austerity rather than just environmental), and if it goes heavily the other way I think he'd call it a day, whereas if he is pipped at the post by transfers it'll be difficult to lead the party effectively.

    If a Corbyn supporter has no preference between Cooper, Burnham or Kendall or a Kendall supporter between Cooper, Burnham or Kendall then it makes sense to just mark the ballot paper once.
    If they have, e.g. a Corbyn supporter might prefer Burnham to Kendall as their leader, then why not vote that way. It's common sense not 'lowering oneself'.
    Harold Wilson always said 'One vote is enough'. Now it's becoming a debate about how well they win already.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Indigo said:

    isam said:

    If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily

    Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.

    I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
    Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
    Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
    ... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!
    They stay in prison
    Maybe its just me but I'd rather use prison spaces to house actual criminals.
    Maybe it's just me but I'd say the word 'illegal' in 'illegal immigrants' means they are actual criminals
    So is someone who speeds on the motorway, should they all be imprisoned too? There are different levels of criminality.

    A few years ago I caught a burglar in my house. He woke me up, I ran downstairs and chased him out the house, catching his licence plate as he drove off. He'd broken my kitchen window to climb in, which is what had woken me up. A week later the Police called me to say he'd been arrested red-handed and he pled guilty to a total of 20 burglaries including mine, the one he was arrested doing and 18 others. He had a prior record for burglary so would definitely do time I was informed.

    The outcome? He was given a suspended sentence and community service. For breaking and entering multiple homes.

    I'd rather see someone who breaks into homes in prison than someone who broke into the country.
    Again, an absurd situation. But the problem of excessive leniency in one case is not more leniency in other cases.
  • Indigo said:

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Christ,why don't you just come out with it,you want open borders to everyone in the world .

    We can be more open without total open borders. But I'd rather completely open than completely closed yes.
    In which case you are as batshit crazy as Corbyn.
    Not really. We already have open borders with over 500 million people and its not causing devastating harm to the country, its quite beneficial in fact. I'm not proposing completely open borders just more open. Proposing completely closed borders is batshit crazy.
  • Icarus said:

    "When I was on the M6 yesterday doing 70mph" - noone is going to believe that!

    LOL exactly!
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,985
    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000,

    Would it really cut low skilled immigration that much? Don't most Poles and Romanians in the UK work and pay tax?

    They need to earn above £30k before they become a net contributor. How many poles and romanians do you think are earning over that?
    Are you sure that £30k figure is accurate as the marginal figure for an average EU immigrant ? If that is the mean of the UK as a whole then I'd have thought the figure for someone who will spend their whole life mainly here would be higher than an EU immigrant, as the young Pole won't need the NHS and won't be in receipt of a state pension at 65+ ?
    The scale of migration is such that we cant just rely on marginal costs. If you have a payroll system for 500 people, the marginal cost is negligible to add 50 people to it. But when you reach the stage that you have to set up a second payroll you have real costs.

    Another way is think of refuse collection. Your authority has two sets of trucks all doing one round a day. Your system has a bit of give. You collect to 20,000 properties. As the population increases and we have some new estates, the numbers increase to 21,000. Thats fine, you rejig the rounds a little, you pay a bit of overtime, you maybe take on a few casuals. Your costs go up slightly, but not much

    However when households increase to 22,000 however, there is no other option then to get a new team and a new truck.

    Thats the situation we are in with schools, hospitals, highways and housing.

    We are long past the point in which we can squeese more people into existing resources. Immigration is now requiring significant extra expenditure.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352

    Indigo said:

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Christ,why don't you just come out with it,you want open borders to everyone in the world .

    We can be more open without total open borders. But I'd rather completely open than completely closed yes.
    In which case you are as batshit crazy as Corbyn.
    Not really. We already have open borders with over 500 million people and its not causing devastating harm to the country, its quite beneficial in fact. I'm not proposing completely open borders just more open. Proposing completely closed borders is batshit crazy.
    "Proposing completely closed borders is batshit crazy"

    Which nobody is proposing
  • isam said:

    Indigo said:

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Christ,why don't you just come out with it,you want open borders to everyone in the world .

    We can be more open without total open borders. But I'd rather completely open than completely closed yes.
    In which case you are as batshit crazy as Corbyn.
    Not really. We already have open borders with over 500 million people and its not causing devastating harm to the country, its quite beneficial in fact. I'm not proposing completely open borders just more open. Proposing completely closed borders is batshit crazy.
    "Proposing completely closed borders is batshit crazy"

    Which nobody is proposing
    I never said anybody was. I said that I'd rather one extreme than another but I'm not proposing it. If someone can believe in lower taxes why can't they believe in more migration?
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    JEO said:

    Icarus said:

    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The World at One ‏@BBCWorldatOne 10m10 minutes ago
    "I haven't got any ex-Conservatives as part of my campaign" - listen live to Liz Kendall (@leicesterliz) on #wato now http://bbc.in/1UyAzkr

    Ha Ha.

    I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Miss Kendall, the abuse she's received from her own side for daring to ask some uncomfortable questions has been quite horrific. Favourite to cross the floor if and when Corbyn wins?
    Before you start to feel sorry for her This from today's Guardian "Liz Kendall wrapped up the 22nd hustings of the Labour leadership race in Canary Wharf, strode into the lift and held her head in her hands. Speaking to the Operation Black Vote audience, she had plunged herself into hot water by declaring that the plight of the white working class was a key priority."

    New Labour becomes UKIP Lite?
    Being concerned about disadvantaged white people makes you UKIP-lite?
    Being concerned about any colour is ridiculous, shame on Labour for Operation Black Vote.

    The irony and stupidity of Labour is the reason they're heading down the pan, good riddance

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,252

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Christ,why don't you just come out with it,you want open borders to everyone in the world .

    We can be more open without total open borders. But I'd rather completely open than completely closed yes.
    You might be speaking a different story if your were living in overcrowded inner city Bradford than white middle class Warrington .
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Amnesty is a mad idea. It just encourages more people to come and evade the authorities for long enough until there's another one. We have an amnesty system anyway (I think its 14 years of avoiding deportation, increased by the Coalition) that should be eliminated. Allowing people to work while they are being processed also causes poor incentives: you can come and earn a lot of money even as a bogus asylum seeker and are turned down, so may as well try regardless.

    The solution to the incoherencies is much quicker deportation: it should not take more than a month or two to process a case with an appeal.
    Amnesty could only come if twinned with reforming the system.

    Denying people the right to work but permitting them to say is just absurd. People are coming anyway and can earn a lot of money (from their perspective) working in a cash-in-hand below minimum wage job. All banning the right to work does is force people into the black market.
    There is no magic reform that entirely fixes all further illegal immigration. It is a matter of keeping it down to as low levels as possible. If we dramatically increase the benefits of a failed application then it encourages more people with bogus claims to come. You can address the black market problem through coming down hard on employers, and by automatically rejecting an asylum claim for anyone caught breaking the law in such a way.
  • notme said:

    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000,

    Would it really cut low skilled immigration that much? Don't most Poles and Romanians in the UK work and pay tax?

    They need to earn above £30k before they become a net contributor. How many poles and romanians do you think are earning over that?
    Are you sure that £30k figure is accurate as the marginal figure for an average EU immigrant ? If that is the mean of the UK as a whole then I'd have thought the figure for someone who will spend their whole life mainly here would be higher than an EU immigrant, as the young Pole won't need the NHS and won't be in receipt of a state pension at 65+ ?
    The scale of migration is such that we cant just rely on marginal costs. If you have a payroll system for 500 people, the marginal cost is negligible to add 50 people to it. But when you reach the stage that you have to set up a second payroll you have real costs.

    Another way is think of refuse collection. Your authority has two sets of trucks all doing one round a day. Your system has a bit of give. You collect to 20,000 properties. As the population increases and we have some new estates, the numbers increase to 21,000. Thats fine, you rejig the rounds a little, you pay a bit of overtime, you maybe take on a few casuals. Your costs go up slightly, but not much

    However when households increase to 22,000 however, there is no other option then to get a new team and a new truck.

    Thats the situation we are in with schools, hospitals, highways and housing.

    We are long past the point in which we can squeese more people into existing resources. Immigration is now requiring significant extra expenditure.
    So build more schools, hospitals, housing etc. There are still economies of scale, do we need more nuclear submarines?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,252
    isam said:

    Indigo said:

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Christ,why don't you just come out with it,you want open borders to everyone in the world .

    We can be more open without total open borders. But I'd rather completely open than completely closed yes.
    In which case you are as batshit crazy as Corbyn.
    Not really. We already have open borders with over 500 million people and its not causing devastating harm to the country, its quite beneficial in fact. I'm not proposing completely open borders just more open. Proposing completely closed borders is batshit crazy.
    "Proposing completely closed borders is batshit crazy"

    Which nobody is proposing
    I don't know,I've seen a number of posters on here with that extremist idea.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    The idea that all low wage Eastern Europeans are young is also untrue. I use a cleaning company that predominantly (possibly entirely) uses Bulgarian cleaners. Five of the seven we have been through so far have been over 45 (at a guess). The ones that I have discussed such matters with want to retire in the UK due to better pensions here.
  • JEO said:

    There is no magic reform that entirely fixes all further illegal immigration. It is a matter of keeping it down to as low levels as possible. If we dramatically increase the benefits of a failed application then it encourages more people with bogus claims to come. You can address the black market problem through coming down hard on employers, and by automatically rejecting an asylum claim for anyone caught breaking the law in such a way.

    My priority is different to yours, I don't think its necessarily worth the costs of keeping it as low as possible. If its a choice between people legally working or making them act illegally I'd rather they work legally - even if that causes more migration. Priorities.

    The government already comes down hard on employers creating bureaucracy and red tape for both legal companies and legal employees to jump through. I believe in low red tape and don't think farming out border control to every company in the country works.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,640
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Indigo said:

    isam said:

    If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily

    Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.

    I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
    Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
    Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
    ... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!
    They stay in prison
    Maybe its just me but I'd rather use prison spaces to house actual criminals.
    Maybe it's just me but I'd say the word 'illegal' in 'illegal immigrants' means they are actual criminals
    So is someone who speeds on the motorway, should they all be imprisoned too? There are different levels of criminality.



    The outcome? He was given a suspended sentence and community service. For breaking and entering multiple homes.

    I'd rather see someone who breaks into homes in prison than someone who broke into the country.
    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked. People that speed on motorways and get caught do get punished.

    Don't care what you think really. Its a deterrent, the aim is to stop them trying to get in, not to lock them up.
    Should not even reach prison, should be taken by the breeks erse and put on the next available transport to where they came from. Being a soft touch for anyone from outside the country is going to cause major issues down the line.
    They are either legal or illegal , if latter out immediately.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,258

    Indigo said:

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Good luck on the doorstep with that. The public were strongly anti immigration a couple of years ago in the British Social Attitudes Survey, do you think Calais and the African crisis will have improved that?
    I know I'm in a minority but its an issue I vehemently disagree with the public and my own party on. A large portion of the public may be anti-immigration but a large portion of the public may believe in raising tax rates (so long as it doesn't affect them) and other things I freely disagree with.

    Since when do we all need to agree with the public on everything?
    Bold, but probably true. A problem for politicians is sometimes there are things that are good for us at we don't want to do, but they get criticised for not being in touch with us and thinking they know better than us if they attempt to do them. That's where you find the true leaders I guess, those who can identify where the public really is wrong, and somehow managing to convince their party and the country of the need to do it anyway, or at least not punish them for it. And actually being right about the public being wrong of course, not an easy thing to be correct about.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,252
    malcolmg said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Indigo said:

    isam said:

    If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily

    Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.

    I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
    Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
    Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
    ... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!
    They stay in prison
    Maybe its just me but I'd rather use prison spaces to house actual criminals.
    Maybe it's just me but I'd say the word 'illegal' in 'illegal immigrants' means they are actual criminals
    So is someone who speeds on the motorway, should they all be imprisoned too? There are different levels of criminality.



    The outcome? He was given a suspended sentence and community service. For breaking and entering multiple homes.

    I'd rather see someone who breaks into homes in prison than someone who broke into the country.
    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked. People that speed on motorways and get caught do get punished.

    Don't care what you think really. Its a deterrent, the aim is to stop them trying to get in, not to lock them up.
    Should not even reach prison, should be taken by the breeks erse and put on the next available transport to where they came from. Being a soft touch for anyone from outside the country is going to cause major issues down the line.
    They are either legal or illegal , if latter out immediately.
    Italy and Greece should be taking your idea quickly but I'm afraid the EU countries will let the matter get worst.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,985

    notme said:

    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000,

    Would it really cut low skilled immigration that much? Don't most Poles and Romanians in the UK work and pay tax?

    They need to earn above £30k before they become a net contributor. How many poles and romanians do you think are earning over that?
    Are you sure that £30k figure is accurate as the marginal figure for an average EU immigrant ? If that is the mean of the UK as a whole then I'd have thought the figure for someone who will spend their whole life mainly here would be higher than an EU immigrant, as the young Pole won't need the NHS and won't be in receipt of a state pension at 65+ ?
    The scale of migration is such that we cant just rely on marginal costs. If you have a payroll system for 500 people, the marginal cost is negligible to add 50 people to it. But when you reach the stage that you have to set up a second payroll you have real costs.

    Another way is think of refuse collection. Your authority has two sets of trucks all doing one round a day. Your system has a bit of give. You collect to 20,000 properties. As the population increases and we have some new estates, the numbers increase to 21,000. Thats fine, you rejig the rounds a little, you pay a bit of overtime, you maybe take on a few casuals. Your costs go up slightly, but not much

    However when households increase to 22,000 however, there is no other option then to get a new team and a new truck.

    Thats the situation we are in with schools, hospitals, highways and housing.

    We are long past the point in which we can squeese more people into existing resources. Immigration is now requiring significant extra expenditure.
    So build more schools, hospitals, housing etc. There are still economies of scale, do we need more nuclear submarines?
    You get no economy of scale if the people who are coming are working for so little they pay no tax, and end up with the same income again in tax credits.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    NEW THREAD
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,985
    isam said:

    Indigo said:

    isam said:

    Eagles tried that crap argument earlier and soon backtracked.

    Don't care what you think really

    It's not crap its my honest opinion and I don't intend to backtrack. I don't think everyone who speeds deserves a prison sentence, nor do I think illegal migrants do.

    I don't care if you don't care either. Last I checked we're all free to posit our opinions so long as its within the rules, if you don't care then don't respond.
    You do believe that illegal immigrants should be deported,don't you ?
    I believe we should offer an amnesty to those already here. I also think it should be easier to migrate here, aside from Europe our borders are too closed off and should be more open.

    I also believe that while processing applications it is utterly absurd and illogical to allow eg asylum seekers to live in the UK while their applications are processed but to refuse them the right to work, that is completely absurd. How is anyone supposed to fund their lives legally without claiming benefits if we let them live here but not work. We should allow anyone in this country to work if we're not going to deport them.
    Christ,why don't you just come out with it,you want open borders to everyone in the world .

    We can be more open without total open borders. But I'd rather completely open than completely closed yes.
    In which case you are as batshit crazy as Corbyn.
    Not really. We already have open borders with over 500 million people and its not causing devastating harm to the country, its quite beneficial in fact. I'm not proposing completely open borders just more open. Proposing completely closed borders is batshit crazy.
    "Proposing completely closed borders is batshit crazy"

    Which nobody is proposing
    Immigration is like salt on your food, too little and its bland, too much and its spoiled. We are far closer to the latter.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,735
    edited August 2015
    Mr Thompson,

    Just returned from a visit to Vilnius Central (Boston). Predominantly Polish, Lithuanian and Latvian immigrants, predominantly Catholic, and young. Therefore lots of pressure on school space. But also very family-orientated. However, young men will be young men. Drink driving seems to be their favourite pastime.

    Heard of one family, two parents, both vets, the man working as a lorry driver, the woman labouring in a greenhouse. Both hard-working, but Lithuania is missing two very qualified people and do we need two more relatively unskilled workers (nothing against lorry drivers) when we have unemployed locals?
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,985
    JEO said:

    notme said:

    Catching up with Phil Hammond's comments.

    Nasty and intemperate.

    He joins Priti Patel on the list of leadership contenders I won't be voting for.

    Come on Mr Eagles,stop being so bloody PC.

    Genghis Khan was a marauder.

    I thought the criticism over swarm was nonsense but I guess I'm taking Hammond's too literally.

    My OED says marauders are thieves and attackers of people.

    I took it he was lumping all illegal immigrants in the marauder category
    But you agree with Hammonds sentiment though on mass immigration from Africa ?

    Broadly yes.

    We need immigration and we need good quality immigrants. But his tone was all wrong and did his case any good.
    As a rule we dont get those good ones from africa, pakistan, bangladesh, romania or Albania.
    We get plenty of good ones from almost all those countries. South African and Nigerian immigramts to the UK for example tend to be very highly skilled. In other cases, like Pakistan and Romania there are a great many educated university graduates and businessmen, although they are outnumbered by low wage workers or non-working spouses.
    Highly skilled in housing benefit fraud and identity fraud.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,811
    edited August 2015
    Surely one of the main issues driving increased migration both within and from without the EU is hugely differential living standards and crucially the knowledge of that.

    Back in the days of the "six" 1957 -73 or the "nine" 1973-81 this was not that much of an issue as essentially you had W European countries with broadly similar living standards (Ok Ireland and S Italy had a bit of catching up to do, and Auf Widersehen Pet working in Germany existed but it was a different scale and era).

    Push forward to the 21st Century and Wizz/Ryan Air or a bus can whisk you across the European continent for a fraction of the real cost of the same journey in the 70's, and you have the internet, which must be an in your face advert for how crap your life is in the Sahel when you can see on your phone that Monaco or Munich or or Muswell Hill for that matter exist.

    For that reason trying to continue to apply the "rules" as they were constructed in 1957 in terms of the EU is creaking at the seams - they were designed to student A Blair of Oxford (to give a well known example) to pull a few pints in Paris circa 1974, not for large numbers of Polish plumbers to turn up and do your U bend for 60% of the hourly rate that applied before (though that benefits the 99% of us who are not plumbers of course).

    Similarly talk of nigh on "open borders" in terms of non EU immigration (even if well intentioned to save genuine asylum seekers - thought I suspect many have "agendas" of their own too to promote immigration), is just bonkers. The demand (see internet viewing above) is practically limitless. We have a housing crisis now, we'd have to provide schools, roads, hospitals, water, electricity, gas, (green targets? - forget it) etc, and there seems to be little talk of the impact of all of this on the population already here. My job's not threatened by Bulgarian businessmen offering to do the same thing for half the price, nor I'm not being priced out of the area I've lived in for decades by more housing demand - but others are. Do they not have rights too?

    There has to be a balance, and right now the balance ought to be set to rather "less" not rather "more".

  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    There is no magic reform that entirely fixes all further illegal immigration. It is a matter of keeping it down to as low levels as possible. If we dramatically increase the benefits of a failed application then it encourages more people with bogus claims to come. You can address the black market problem through coming down hard on employers, and by automatically rejecting an asylum claim for anyone caught breaking the law in such a way.

    My priority is different to yours, I don't think its necessarily worth the costs of keeping it as low as possible. If its a choice between people legally working or making them act illegally I'd rather they work legally - even if that causes more migration. Priorities.

    The government already comes down hard on employers creating bureaucracy and red tape for both legal companies and legal employees to jump through. I believe in low red tape and don't think farming out border control to every company in the country works.
    No one is being made to act illegally. They are provided housing and a stipend while they are being processed. If they choose to break the law of the country that is being so kind to them then that is moral deficiency on their part rather than a desperate situation.

    No one is advocating farming out border control to companies. Merely enforcing criminal sanctions for those companies breaking the law.

    Your cost benefit arguments also do not work. The tiny benefit to the economy of a small number of asylum seekers working low wage jobs is clearly outweighed by the costs of processing, housing and providing healthcare for a much larger number that would come here.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    welshowl said:

    Surely one of the main issues driving increased migration both within and from without the EU is hugely differential living standards and crucially the knowledge of that.

    Back in the days of the "six" 1957 -73 or the "nine" 1973-81 this was not that much of an issue as essentially you had W European countries with broadly similar living standards (Ok Ireland and S Italy had a bit of catching up to do, and Auf Widersehen Pet working in Germany existed but it was a different scale and era).

    Push forward to the 21st Century and Wizz/Ryan Air or a bus can whisk you across the European continent for a fraction of the real cost of the same journey in the 70's, and you have the internet, which must be an in your face advert for how crap your life is in the Sahel when you can see on your phone that Monaco or Munich or or Muswell Hill for that matter exist.

    For that reason trying to continue to apply the "rules" as they were constructed in 1957 in terms of the EU is creaking at the seams - they were designed to student A Blair of Oxford (to give a well known example) to pull a few pints in Paris circa 1974, not for large numbers of Polish plumbers to turn up and do your U bend for 60% of the hourly rate that applied before (though that benefits the 99% of us who are not plumbers of course).

    Similarly talk of nigh on "open borders" in terms of non EU immigration (even if well intentioned to save genuine asylum seekers - thought I suspect many have "agendas" of their own too to promote immigration), is just bonkers. The demand (see internet viewing above) is practically limitless. We have a housing crisis now, we'd have to provide schools, roads, hospitals, water, electricity, gas, (green targets? - forget it) etc, and there seems to be little talk of the impact of all of this on the population already here. My job's not threatened by Bulgarian businessmen offering to do the same thing for half the price, nor I'm not being priced out of the area I've lived in for decades by more housing demand - but others are. Do they not have rights too?

    There has to be a balance, and right now the balance ought to be set to rather "less" not rather "more".

    Excellent and logical
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,640

    notme said:

    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000,

    Would it really cut low skilled immigration that much? Don't most Poles and Romanians in the UK work and pay tax?

    They need to earn above £30k before they become a net contributor. How many poles and romanians do you think are earning over that?
    Are you sure that £30k figure is accurate as the marginal figure for an average EU immigrant ? If that is the mean of the UK as a whole then I'd have thought the figure for someone who will spend their whole life mainly here would be higher than an EU immigrant, as the young Pole won't need the NHS and won't be in receipt of a state pension at 65+ ?
    The scale of migration is such that we cant just rely on marginal costs. If you have a payroll system for 500 people, the marginal cost is negligible to add 50 people to it. But when you reach the stage that you have to set up a second payroll you have real costs.

    Another way is think of refuse collection. Your authority has two sets of trucks all doing one round a day. Your system has a bit of give. You collect to 20,000 properties. As the population increases and we have some new estates, the numbers increase to 21,000. Thats fine, you rejig the rounds a little, you pay a bit of overtime, you maybe take on a few casuals. Your costs go up slightly, but not much

    However when households increase to 22,000 however, there is no other option then to get a new team and a new truck.

    Thats the situation we are in with schools, hospitals, highways and housing.

    We are long past the point in which we can squeese more people into existing resources. Immigration is now requiring significant extra expenditure.
    So build more schools, hospitals, housing etc. There are still economies of scale, do we need more nuclear submarines?
    You going to the magic money tree to pay for it , or collecting it from the illegal immigrants.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    watford30 said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!

    Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement?
    Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
    African migrants wouldn't be storming the channel tunnel if we weren't part of the EU

    Yes, they would. Unless we clamp down on those who employ them illegally, handing out 5 year sentences to those who give them work.
    £50,000 fines per person would quickly sort dodgy employers out.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642

    notme said:

    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000,

    Would it really cut low skilled immigration that much? Don't most Poles and Romanians in the UK work and pay tax?

    They need to earn above £30k before they become a net contributor. How many poles and romanians do you think are earning over that?
    Are you sure that £30k figure is accurate as the marginal figure for an average EU immigrant ? If that is the mean of the UK as a whole then I'd have thought the figure for someone who will spend their whole life mainly here would be higher than an EU immigrant, as the young Pole won't need the NHS and won't be in receipt of a state pension at 65+ ?
    The scale of migration is such that we cant just rely on marginal costs. If you have a payroll system for 500 people, the marginal cost is negligible to add 50 people to it. But when you reach the stage that you have to set up a second payroll you have real costs.

    Another way is think of refuse collection. Your authority has two sets of trucks all doing one round a day. Your system has a bit of give. You collect to 20,000 properties. As the population increases and we have some new estates, the numbers increase to 21,000. Thats fine, you rejig the rounds a little, you pay a bit of overtime, you maybe take on a few casuals. Your costs go up slightly, but not much

    However when households increase to 22,000 however, there is no other option then to get a new team and a new truck.

    Thats the situation we are in with schools, hospitals, highways and housing.

    We are long past the point in which we can squeese more people into existing resources. Immigration is now requiring significant extra expenditure.
    So build more schools, hospitals, housing etc. There are still economies of scale, do we need more nuclear submarines?
    I take it you have never studied economics or have even the most basic grasp of it?
  • MP_SE said:

    notme said:

    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000,

    Would it really cut low skilled immigration that much? Don't most Poles and Romanians in the UK work and pay tax?

    They need to earn above £30k before they become a net contributor. How many poles and romanians do you think are earning over that?
    Are you sure that £30k figure is accurate as the marginal figure for an average EU immigrant ? If that is the mean of the UK as a whole then I'd have thought the figure for someone who will spend their whole life mainly here would be higher than an EU immigrant, as the young Pole won't need the NHS and won't be in receipt of a state pension at 65+ ?
    The scale of migration is such that we cant just rely on marginal costs. If you have a payroll system for 500 people, the marginal cost is negligible to add 50 people to it. But when you reach the stage that you have to set up a second payroll you have real costs.

    Another way is think of refuse collection. Your authority has two sets of trucks all doing one round a day. Your system has a bit of give. You collect to 20,000 properties. As the population increases and we have some new estates, the numbers increase to 21,000. Thats fine, you rejig the rounds a little, you pay a bit of overtime, you maybe take on a few casuals. Your costs go up slightly, but not much

    However when households increase to 22,000 however, there is no other option then to get a new team and a new truck.

    Thats the situation we are in with schools, hospitals, highways and housing.

    We are long past the point in which we can squeese more people into existing resources. Immigration is now requiring significant extra expenditure.
    So build more schools, hospitals, housing etc. There are still economies of scale, do we need more nuclear submarines?
    I take it you have never studied economics or have even the most basic grasp of it?
    Other than at degree level and postgraduate level and ... don't make assumptions about other people.
Sign In or Register to comment.