PDA

View Full Version : Immigration - social trouble on its way



BobTheCrate
30th July 2006, 10:06
It seems immigration is fast soaring to No1 concern for the electorate. Some say it's already No1. And now it aint just the electorate who's worried.

Home Office warns of social tension (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1833623,00.html)
The document, written by Home Office Minister Joan Ryan and obtained by the Mail on Sunday, says the influx of cheap labour is forcing British workers to take pay cuts, with serious implications for social tension.

Secret report warns of migration meltdown in Britain (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=398232&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5)
A massive rise in immigration next year could trigger a devastating crisis in Britain's schools, housing and welfare services, according to a secret Government report leaked to The Mail on Sunday.

Councils step up warnings of migrant pressure on resources (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/131145a2-1e9e-11db-9877-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=34c8a8a6-2f7b-11da-8b51-00000e2511c8.html)
Councils step up warnings of migrant pressure on resources
Local authorities warned yesterday that the government's failure to produce accurate figures on numbers of immigrant workers threatens to leave them severely short of cash to provide public services.

Immigration - how New Labour got the numbers completely wrong (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/07/26/ccjeff26.xml)
When future historians assess New Labour's vandalism of the United Kingdom's cultural, political and commercial fabric, the wilful destruction of border controls will surely be judged as the measure that caused most pain.

DimPrawn
30th July 2006, 11:49
Doomed!

Troll
30th July 2006, 12:41
Rivers of Blood

NoddY
30th July 2006, 13:01
Better get your names down on the housing list now before saturation point and before the repossesion order arrives!

Benny
30th July 2006, 14:24
Yard quizzes three Muslim officers in hunt for terrorist sleepers

SCOTLAND YARD has placed one of its Muslim officers on restricted duties while it investigates intelligence that he may have attended a terror camp linked to Al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

The policeman — who firmly denies the allegations — is said by police sources to be one of three Muslim officers questioned in a Yard search for terror “sleeper cells” in its ranks.

The move follows disclosures earlier this month that Islamic terrorist sympathisers had attempted to infiltrate the intelligence services by applying for jobs in MI5.

It raises the risk of terrorist “fifth columnists” passing on information about secret operations and compromising the identities of undercover agents.

mcquiggd
30th July 2006, 14:30
It's a pity it is only discussed in the mainstream once it is too late.

And it is, IMHO, too late.

snaw
31st July 2006, 06:59
The mail on sunday, eh, guess if you like your Sunday mornings on the hysterical side then that's the source to get your news and views from.

We're dooomed.

xoggoth
31st July 2006, 08:06
Ok to shout "scaremongering" Snaw but is the report wrong or exaggerated? In my searches on this subject, for every exaggeration in the the right wing press there is a deliberate conspiracy of silence on the real costs of inadequately controlled immigration elsewhere. No need to go to extremist websites, just look at some of these issues in government reports, from hospitals, health and education authorities etc.

Mailman
31st July 2006, 08:09
The problem is that you morons have let the wrong f8ckers in to your country! :D

Everyone knows that the only people you should be letting in are those who have similar social structures...and those countries ARENT Pakistan, Asia, Pakistan! :rollin:

Then again, if you let in only kiwis, criminal yobs and saffas that means you poms wont have any high paying jobs in banking...so maybe it is for the best that you let in people from any country that ends in "stan" :rollin:

Mailman

xoggoth
31st July 2006, 08:17
Oz has a few serial killers and layabouts too. I think it's more to the point that individuals are properly checked, and checks should include one for a proper degree of committment to our society and acceptance of its major principles of secularism, free speech and individual freedom. Crazy that it seems to be harder to get a job as a shop assistant than admission to the UK. Above all, it's about reasonable numbers.

BobTheCrate
31st July 2006, 09:42
The mail on sunday, eh, guess if you like your Sunday mornings on the hysterical side then that's the source to get your news and views from.
The Mail on Sunday was just one of the 4 sources.

The other 3 sources were The Guardian, The F.T and The Telegraph. Interesting you find these newspapers 'hysterical' too.

snaw
31st July 2006, 10:00
The Mail on Sunday was just one of the 4 sources.

The other 3 sources were The Guardian, The F.T and The Telegraph. Interesting you find these newspapers 'hysterical' too.

How so - the Guardian just quotes the Mail, the Mail does it's usual (Hysterical), the FT states (Fairly) that local authorities are worried because the governments innacurate immigration figures could leave them short of cash and the Telegraph I'd consider almost as hysterical as the Mail but either way that article is an opinion piece, not to mention it has no reference to the topic you're discussing - the leaked memo.

The leaked memo is a worse case scenario and could well be valid, I dunno but it's a complex issue with benefits as well as negatives. I read your first two quotes, both referencing the Mail and wrongly assumed the other two referenced the same thing, my mistake.

Either way - did you spend a few hours trawling through every paper so you could get a few choice articles on immigration so you could bring us this message of Armagedon?

Based on this trawling you say immigration is 'fast soaring' to be the No1 concern for the electorate - righty ho. Whatever you say.

DimPrawn
31st July 2006, 10:03
Snaw, if the contracting ever dries up, there's a good job awaiting you at New Lie towers in their Psyops dept.

HTH

snaw
31st July 2006, 10:13
Snaw, if the contracting ever dries up, there's a good job awaiting you at New Lie towers in their Psyops dept.

HTH

Nah, unlike those tw@ts I have some principles. I'm not even saying it's not an issue, I just prefer to be a little more balanced and objective on it and I find the Mail to be anything but. I got that bit wrong cause it wasn't all quotes by the mail, but reading the ones he linked didn't really inform me any further beyond the fact that increasing immigration might put an extra strain on our resources, well feck me, I would never have figured that one out ...

BobTheCrate
31st July 2006, 11:33
How so - the Guardian just quotes the Mail, ...
No it doesn't. It says ...
The document, written by Home Office Minister Joan Ryan and obtained by the Mail on Sunday

John Galt
31st July 2006, 11:43
Nah, unlike those tw@ts I have some principles. I'm not even saying it's not an issue, I just prefer to be a little more balanced and objective on it and I find the Mail to be anything but. I got that bit wrong cause it wasn't all quotes by the mail, but reading the ones he linked didn't really inform me any further beyond the fact that increasing immigration might put an extra strain on our resources, well feck me, I would never have figured that one out ...

What are your principals Snaw? And how do you know that any one section of the media is any more biased than another. I agree that the Mail is a right wing paper but how do you know that their reporting is less accurate in this instance than the BBC (very pro Bliar and co IMHO). What would you say is a balanced view of the immigration issue?

BobTheCrate
31st July 2006, 11:48
I'm not even saying it's not an issue, I just prefer to be a little more balanced and objective on itThe Government publically does nothing but praise to the sky the benefits of immigration. These articles provide the balance you claim you want. Rather than the same New Lie spin all the time that only states what it believes to be the benefits and never mentioning, let alone acknowledging the disadvantages.

Either way - did you spend a few hours trawling through every paper so you could get a few choice articles on immigration so you could bring us this message of Armagedon?
It's not me bringing you the message. It's the Home Office.

Bagpuss
31st July 2006, 11:49
Clearly there is a demand for their labour. If I look around my office the majority of the cleaning and security staff are immigrants.

Dundeegeorge
31st July 2006, 11:57
Clearly there is a demand for their labour. If I look around my office the majority of the cleaning and security staff are immigrants.

And I hope these immigrants are paying tax, after all someone's got to pay dole money for the indigienous population who won't take on these low-paid jobs for which we need to import migrant labour. Err, hang on, shome mishtake shirley?

Bagpuss
31st July 2006, 12:03
Would you clean toilets for £4 per hour?

Who has proprietary rights on the world? I was under the impression we were free to go wherever (in the free world anyway).
So why shouldn't someone be able to work or live in any country they fancied?

BobTheCrate
31st July 2006, 12:19
Who has proprietary rights on the world? I was under the impression we were free to go wherever (in the free world anyway).
So why shouldn't someone be able to work or live in any country they fancied?
So you wouldn't have any limit then Bagpus ? There are many 100,000's of peoples from the African continent, South America, and Indo China who would love to come here as well but for the visa requirement. Your policy means we should scrap that visa requirement in the interests of free peoples being free to go anywhere they choose.

And in so doing you believe there would not be, and should not be any social problems caused as a result whatsoever ?

Oh dear.

Bagpuss
31st July 2006, 12:23
My policy is it's a free world, why should you or I have rights over one Island just because we were born there?

ratewhore
31st July 2006, 12:29
Would you clean toilets for £4 per hour?


Thats less then NMW - which is illegal - surely?


:cool2:

Pondlife
31st July 2006, 12:32
My policy is it's a free world, why should you or I have rights over one Island just because we were born there?

So what happened to the Aboriginies and Native Americans was okay then?

Bagpuss
31st July 2006, 12:33
"Thats less then NMW - which is illegal - surely?"

Maybe they take the extra £1 as dividend




So what happened to the Aboriginies and Native Americans was okay then?

according to the Americans it was fine

snaw
31st July 2006, 12:57
What are your principals Snaw? And how do you know that any one section of the media is any more biased than another. I agree that the Mail is a right wing paper but how do you know that their reporting is less accurate in this instance than the BBC (very pro Bliar and co IMHO). What would you say is a balanced view of the immigration issue?

Many and varied, but I'd like to think they're a touch more true than the NL ones ...

I had no comment to make on the accuracy of the Mail's reporting, just the spin they themselves put on pretty much everything they write, which as I stated is of the hysterical reporting variety. In my mind the Mail is for people who think they're a touch better than Sun readers but with the overall same level of intelligence. I wouldn't wipe my arse with either paper.

The BBC I would agree leans left, but I would also correct your pro-Blair comment, I'd have to disagree and say the BBC is very anti-government (Suits me, I can't stand the b'stards either).


The Government publically does nothing but praise to the sky the benefits of immigration. These articles provide the balance you claim you want. Rather than the same New Lie spin all the time that only states what it believes to be the benefits and never mentioning, let alone acknowledging the disadvantages.

It does? Can't remember the government doing that, underestimating the numbers maybe, praising nope.

On the balance question I think you might have to go back and revist the dictionary for balance - your selection was far from it. Four articles on immigration, one an opinion piece (Very right wing one at that), three on a leaked memo which basiaclly states the obvious - increased immigration from Eastern Europe will put a strain on our resources and a possible issue if the courts overturn the current restrictions on immigrants getting benefits or council houses. Hardly earth shattering. For balance I personally read a variety of news sources, but the Mail would never make it onto that list, cause quite simply anytime I do read it, it reminds me what a pile of shite it is.

snaw
31st July 2006, 12:59
So what happened to the Aboriginies and Native Americans was okay then?

I reckon we'd be within our rights to stop people immigrating here who wanted to nick all our land, give us deadly diseases and think it was ok to hunt us down, exterminate us and collect our ears to exchange for cash ...

Viktor
31st July 2006, 13:03
I think the truth is somewhere in between...to often people debate over immigration on the basis of some articles and posts in forums like this one...
After all everything depends on how you integrate new ones into your existing society; have a look at Canada, they actually DEPEND on immigration and seems that no one complains about new arrivals; Canadian economy benefits on the long term and everyone is considered "Canadian" after 3 years by law. But they control the education level, language and health of the would-be immigrants BEFORE a visa is granted.
In UK so far I've seen the opposite: everyone pops in with a visa (FFS do you know how many countries were allowed to send people here on "holidaymaker 2 year visas"? http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_07_24/uk/cyprus_lebanon_closure.htm
if you were thinking that only Aussies and Kiwis use this visa, you are wrong - read the link ) and after there are ways to circumvent, extend or bribe some Home Office twat in order to be declared "legal". After several years, when all the damage has been done, you begin to scream "no more immigration" and of course all new immigrants are hit, no matter the circumstances.
In the end, the goal would be to have indeed a free labour market in EU, with the same laws in place across borders. But until that far away moment, you can read about the latest trend in immigration here :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5151740.stm

Victor

Bagpuss
31st July 2006, 13:04
I reckon we'd be within our rights to stop people immigrating here who wanted to nick all our land, give us deadly diseases and think it was ok to hunt us down, exterminate us and collect our ears to exchange for cash ...

Bloody savages those Pakistanis!

John Galt
31st July 2006, 13:10
I had no comment to make on the accuracy of the Mail's reporting, just the spin they themselves put on pretty much everything they write, which as I stated is of the hysterical reporting variety

Really? or is it just a case that you don't like what they print? As far as your native american indian post goes - do you think that everyone coming into this country legal or illegal wishes us well as a nation?

snaw
31st July 2006, 13:24
Really? or is it just a case that you don't like what they print? As far as your native american indian post goes - do you think that everyone coming into this country legal or illegal wishes us well as a nation?

Nope, it's right wing sensalionalist spin, which cherry picks quotes & stats to further it's own agenda, which is blindingly obvious. I don't like the telegraph much either but at least it don't insult my intelligence by assuming I'm a moron and making my mind up for me, by presenting at least most of the relevent facts, nor sensationalising every story . If you want to defend the Mail be my guest, your welcome to the garbage but you've dropped even further in my estimation in the process.

And nope, I don't think there is a country on earth which has any serious amount of immigration where at least some of those coming in wish them no harm. So we should stop immigration completely then cause some of those coming don't love us as much as we'd like? Not really sure where that line of debate is taking you ...

BobTheCrate
31st July 2006, 13:32
...to often people debate over immigration on the basis of some articles and posts in forums like this one... It is a discussion forum Viktor.

After all everything depends on how you integrate new ones into your existing societyWell said that man - it is a hugely important aspect of immigration all too often never considered properly.

Sustained large scale immigration with little or no regard for the social & economic impact, nearly always leads to a great deal of social tension & strife.

I thought sociology was a fairly well respected study up there with economics. But some here (and all in New Liebour) appear to totally ignore the social implications, let alone pay scant regard to them. Until it adversely affects them, then, they're right there at the front of the queue complaining more loudly than anyone else.

Hart-floot
31st July 2006, 13:35
[QUOTE=Viktor]I think the truth is somewhere in between...to often people debate over immigration on the basis of some articles and posts in forums like this one...
After all everything depends on how you integrate new ones into your existing society; have a look at Canada, they actually DEPEND on immigration and seems that no one complains about new arrivals; 2 year visas"? http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_07_24/uk/cyprus_lebanon_closure.htm


Your not comparing like with like here. Canada is a huge country with an extremely low population density compared to the UK. Its economy does not depend on immigration but it might benefit from it.

There are some jobs in the UK now that need to be filled but many people here are now seeing their wage rates being reduced to minimum wage or competition for jobs increased, especially White Van man type-jobs and to some extent in the IT arena. At the same time, pressure on housing grows resulting in higher costs, less living space etc etc basic supply & demand. their children can look forward to a worse quality of life.

2 years ago Labour estimated that only 20,000 people from E Europe would come to the UK the reality was its nearer to 600,000 and counting. Fears for next year are probably justified in light of that experience.

I want to see a rich and wealthy Poland & Rumania but not at the expense of this country and its quality of life.

sasguru
31st July 2006, 13:48
The problem is that immigration is debated more with the heart than the head.
My personal take on this is that the right type of immigrants i.e. hard-working, intelligent, educated, entreupreunerial are an asset to any country. But under Labour anyone is being let in e.g. those Ethiopians (?) who tried to emulate the London bombings 3 weeks later. Why the feck were they let in? Their former colonial master was Italy and if they were seeking asylum (yeah right!) that's where they should have gone.

DimPrawn
31st July 2006, 13:49
We must vote Labour as it's the only way we are going to get the required 10,000,000 people we need to prop up house prices.

HTH.

snaw
31st July 2006, 13:53
Sustained large scale immigration with little or no regard for the social & economic impact, nearly always leads to a great deal of social tension & strife.

I thought sociology was a fairly well respected study up there with economics. But some here (and all in New Liebour) appear to totally ignore the social implications, let alone pay scant regard to them.

I'm guessing that's aimed at me, I'm just trying to see where you inferred from my posts that I wasn't aware of the social implications, or indeed was in full agreement with 'large scale immigration'?

BTW I agree with what Sas said, the right kind of immigrants are fine by me. And I am all for a system which doesn't provide benefits or houses to immigrants until they'er citizens of the country and lived and contributed here for a few years (Like in Australia).

Bagpuss
31st July 2006, 13:57
the only solution is to make sure all immigrants are white. Any black ones already here will just have to be painted.

DaveB
31st July 2006, 14:00
the only solution is to make sure all immigrants are white. Any black ones already here will just have to be painted.

Bagpuss is the bastard child of Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning and I claim my £5.

BobTheCrate
31st July 2006, 14:04
I'm guessing that's aimed at me ...
You guessed wrong. It wasn't aimed specifically at you snaw.

It was aimed at those who only concentrate on their view that sustained large scale immigration can only be good because in their opinion, 'we need the labour'.

That belief/opinion in their minds, should override all other considerations.

snaw
31st July 2006, 14:17
You guessed wrong. It wasn't aimed specifically at you snaw.

It was aimed at those who only concentrate on their view that sustained large scale immigration can only be good because in their opinion, 'we need the labour'.

That belief/opinion in their minds, should override all other considerations.

Ahh, well it was your prefacing the comment with "But some here" and since I don't see any other 'likely' candidates my paranoia got the better of me.

So who are you talking about then (the 'some here')?

DimPrawn
31st July 2006, 14:23
I think he means the leftie, deluded ones that think the New Lie are making Britain great again.

Not a rational balanced thinker like yourself snaw.

snaw
31st July 2006, 14:26
I think he means the leftie, deluded ones that think the New Lie are making Britain great again.

Not a rational balanced thinker like yourself snaw.

Right then, that's that sorted. What's next for debating your way through the day cause I'm bored sh!tless 101 then?

BobTheCrate
31st July 2006, 15:00
DP, your sarcasm me thinks knows no bounds. :music:

Fungus
31st July 2006, 16:35
2 years ago Labour estimated that only 20,000 people from E Europe would come to the UK the reality was its nearer to 600,000 and counting. Fears for next year are probably justified in light of that experience.

I want to see a rich and wealthy Poland & Rumania but not at the expense of this country and its quality of life.

Sigh. I was getting used to being able to get by in Luton with a smattering of Polish and Urdu. Now I find that I will need Bulgarian and Roumanian.

When we get 500,000 more Eastern Europeans, and large scale indigeneous unemployment, I wonder what will happen. No doubt New Liar will come through smelling of roses. Funny how excrement can have the scent of roses.

Sinbad
31st July 2006, 16:55
Sigh. I was getting used to being able to get by in Luton with a smattering of Polish and Urdu. Now I find that I will need Bulgarian and Roumanian.

When we get 500,000 more Eastern Europeans, and large scale indigeneous unemployment, I wonder what will happen. No doubt New Liar will come through smelling of roses. Funny how excrement can have the scent of roses.

Eastern Europeans are very anti muslim. No one has actually bothered to think what the effect of this immigration has on my people. It is our people who are having to compete with them. After all the Poles are white. We dont want them.

Fungus
31st July 2006, 17:07
Eastern Europeans are very anti muslim. No one has actually bothered to think what the effect of this immigration has on my people. It is our people who are having to compete with them. After all the Poles are white. We dont want them.

Glad to see that unlike them you are not in the least bit racist. :D

Some of the right wing Catholic views of Poles are not very nice. Then again, some of the more extreme Muslim views are not so nice (such as a refusal of many to vote Tory due to a Jewish leader, according to a Muslim MP anyway).

I think too much of a good thing is not good, and we are seeing too much.

Provocatively yours, Fungus.

Sinbad
31st July 2006, 17:18
Glad to see that unlike them you are not in the least bit racist. :D

Some of the right wing Catholic views of Poles are not very nice. Then again, some of the more extreme Muslim views are not so nice (such as a refusal of many to vote Tory due to a Jewish leader, according to a Muslim MP anyway).

I think too much of a good thing is not good, and we are seeing too much.

Provocatively yours, Fungus.

My point was that if Poland was made up of muslims then there is no way that we would have allowed them free access to the UK. They have been allowed in precisely because they are white. My problem with them is not their skin colour it is to do with the fact that it is my people who are largely threatened by their prescence

Viktor
31st July 2006, 17:27
Eastern Europeans are very anti muslim. No one has actually bothered to think what the effect of this immigration has on my people. It is our people who are having to compete with them. After all the Poles are white. We dont want them.

FOAD. Now Eastern Europeans are anti-muslim. Everyone just talks about Poles everywhere, the massive Eastern European immigration blah blah :spank:

I have just some questions for you:

1. How many Eastern Europeans / Total number of emigrants in UK?
2. How many Eastern Europeans are staying on benefits, doing nowt all day long?
3. What are the crime statistics among Eastern Europeans in UK?
4. How are Eastern Europeans educated compared to other immigrants in UK?

I am not anti-muslim. I just want to apply the same logic, no matters religion, colour etc. A logic that doesn't apply when they judge asylum seeker applications, yeah? :mad:

Maybe Mr. Fungus can help us with some statistics...

Victor

snaw
31st July 2006, 17:58
DP, your sarcasm me thinks knows no bounds. :music:

Not much get's past you BTC.

Spartacus
31st July 2006, 18:05
My point was that if Poland was made up of muslims then there is no way that we would have allowed them free access to the UK. They have been allowed in precisely because they are white. My problem with them is not their skin colour it is to do with the fact that it is my people who are largely threatened by their prescence
Excuse me Mr Bigot, it may have passed you by but they have been allowed in because they joined the EU, funnily enough even the Polish Muslims. When Turkey joins the EU, they will be allowed in too, even the Turkish Christians.

Joshua Hallelujah Booker
31st July 2006, 18:11
There's me thinking it was because they were in the EU. Actually, given their awful current leaders and those stories of the far right groups, I'm beginning to wonder about the Poles too. As an atheist especially so, extreme Christians are as much a threat to secular freedom as extreme Islam.

But more than anything else, regardless of who or what religion, it's just the sheer numbers that ruin our quality of life. Every month that goes by there is more evidence of the ruination of the South East, fields and woods disappearing under more housing estates, every little gap being filled in between houses in what used to be pleasant villages. In a decade our immediate area is going to be spoiled by thousands more houses and a bypass. Maybe we should forget arguments about what religion newcomers are and agree on the much more important issue of what is happening to the quality of all our lives in return for no discernable benefit.

To repeat, as it seems difficult to get this obvious mathematical fact to sink in, one cannot raise the average standard of living by bringing in people who are at best average economic performers.

PS Oh darn! wrong persona again!

Fungus
31st July 2006, 18:20
There's me thinking ...

PS Oh darn! wrong persona again!

Wat you doin mon. An dere's mee tinking dat you eez a bruder, but you ees a white man playin at been a broder. Yo's an evil evil mon.

[Breaks out into a florid rendition of Ole Man River]

Fungus
31st July 2006, 18:21
FOAD. Now Eastern Europeans are anti-muslim. Everyone just talks about Poles everywhere, the massive Eastern European immigration blah blah :spank:

I have just some questions for you:

1. How many Eastern Europeans / Total number of emigrants in UK?
2. How many Eastern Europeans are staying on benefits, doing nowt all day long?
3. What are the crime statistics among Eastern Europeans in UK?
4. How are Eastern Europeans educated compared to other immigrants in UK?

I am not anti-muslim. I just want to apply the same logic, no matters religion, colour etc. A logic that doesn't apply when they judge asylum seeker applications, yeah? :mad:

Maybe Mr. Fungus can help us with some statistics...

Victor


That's the problem I can't really give anything but basic statistics, because this government have been so free and relaxed on this whole issue. The only statistic I do know is that about 250,000 Eastern Europeans have registered to work in the UK over the last few years, and some estimate that the true number of immigrants is twice that. The Migration Watch web site is worth visiting.

We know nothing about the education levels, or crime statistics. I suspect education levels are modest but better than UK chavs. Hence they will displace UK chavs. As for crime, well I suspect that Eastern European crime gangs will set up business here, as has happened in Israel. However, I have no evidence whatsoever for that assertion. We will see.

As for benefits, well by all accounts the Poles are hard working, and do not put a strain on welfare. From that point of view we need not worry.

My comment about some of the right wing Poles is based on the Polish mainstream political parties, which are expressing views that to our ears are rather extreme and right wing.

Fungus
31st July 2006, 18:28
Excuse me Mr Bigot, it may have passed you by but they have been allowed in because they joined the EU, funnily enough even the Polish Muslims. When Turkey joins the EU, they will be allowed in too, even the Turkish Christians.

I think he has a point in that no-one has objected to huge numbers of Poles, and yet we make it really difficult for Indians/Pakistanis to bring in relatives. Yeah okay it is due to EU rules, but still, the underlying attitude of many is "white, Christian, good", "swarthy, non-Christian, bad".

Joshua Hallelujah Booker
31st July 2006, 18:36
Pretty normal human reaction to prefer those most like oneself I would have thought. This instinct is called racism in white people, preserving one's cultural heritage anywhere else in the world.

Whatver one calls it, maybe a very sensible reaction to prefer those with whom one does not have major differences about the direction of society.

mcquiggd
31st July 2006, 18:45
My preference is for people who dont want to blow themselves up in the name of allah, murder their daughters for daring to want to choose who to marry, and don't set up no-go zones for 'whites'.

I don't mind Polish people - in fact I rather like the ones Iv'e met. But the sheer numbers are just frightening.

The prospect of Rumanians and Bulgarians being allowed to immediately travel to the UK is disastrous.

xoggoth
31st July 2006, 18:47
Fungus. My good but deluded friend Joshua is a poor and deeply devout black man from the Mississipi Delta, not a Jamaican crack dealer!

Spartacus
31st July 2006, 18:51
by all accounts the Poles are hard working, and do not put a strain on welfare.
The one currently painting my garage certainly is. He's doing it in half the time the local painter 'n' decorator wanted and for a quarter of the cost.

mcquiggd
31st July 2006, 18:52
Better pay him on time though, or else he'll move into your house.


I wonder what the equation is... do you really save by getting your shed painted for 50%, then paying more in tax for unemployment benefit, more schools, hospitals, roads, and police?

Somehow, I doubt it.

xoggoth
31st July 2006, 19:07
You hit the nail on the head McQ. It's a form of artificial subsidy as much as propping up British Leyland ever was. It takes market forces out of the equation, allowing bosses to make profits on businesses which would otherwise be unprofitable and effectively fossilising our commerce rather than forcing it to move on to more viable enterprises.

Spartacus
31st July 2006, 19:47
I have taken the lesson to heart and marched my Polish worker off-site. The expensive and slow local will be engaged to complete the task tomorrow.

Spartacus in "seeing the light" mode.

Viktor
31st July 2006, 20:57
Everyone complains about the levels of immigration, fecking govt etc.
But a country needs solutions not complaints. So what has to be done in UK NOW to prevent problems arising in the future?

1. UK can require a work permit for each person coming from EU - is this feasible??? :suicide:

2. We can split EU in two - "the riches" and "the poor" - require work permits for "poor" - full rights for "riches" - is this correct?? :spank:

3. Don't give to the foreign workers the same level of benefits given to locals - not until several years. If you are a foreigner you shouldn't claim benefits after 6 months - this is common sense.

4. Full rights of TRAVEL for each EU member state, but an interview/visa in order to have work/self employment rights. A points immigration system based on education, level of experience, language knowledge, level of income (in this order). I don't see the point why a French should be given more rights than a Slovakian for example. Let everyone compete in the market WITH THE SAME CONDITIONS - but every EU state could favor some job profiles where there is a shortage.

I personally would say a combination of 3 and 4 - but with a CLEAR points based immigration system, valid for everyone.

Am I missing something?

Victor

One of the Eastern Europeans

mcquiggd
31st July 2006, 21:23
Leave the EU. It's corrupt, expensive, and vindictive.

stackpole
31st July 2006, 23:28
Everyone complains about the levels of immigration, fecking govt etc.
But a country needs solutions not complaints. So what has to be done in UK NOW to prevent problems arising in the future?

<snip 4 over-complicated solutions>

Am I missing something?Yes you are. We are full up. Think roads, power, water, public transport, housing.

First, how about only letting in the same number as those that emigrate?

Second, only let in those who apply and get approval before they come here. Anyone else who turns up at any of our ports are turned right round and sent back. No appeals.

There's a workable solution for you. It satisfies everyone, and is so simple that even HMG might have a chance of getting it half-right.

snaw
1st August 2006, 08:54
Yes you are. We are full up. Think roads, power, water, public transport, housing.

First, how about only letting in the same number as those that emigrate?

Second, only let in those who apply and get approval before they come here. Anyone else who turns up at any of our ports are turned right round and sent back. No appeals.

There's a workable solution for you. It satisfies everyone, and is so simple that even HMG might have a chance of getting it half-right.

Fist, what about all those retiring? As the population gets older we need immigrants (Or more women giving birth) to prop up the increasingly elderly population. The you've got the issue of emigrants those who come back, which I suspect is a fair number of people - do they have to wait also?

Second, completely agree. Except for the genuine political refugees who are in danger of being killed if they go back. Controversial on this board I know, but that's the looney lefty in me.

Problem with this simple solution is the EU freedom of movement/labour thing. It's illegal under EU law to restrict it within the EU so to avoid the problem we'd have to withdraw from the EU. That's a whole different kettle of fish, and simply isn't going to happen any time soon, not too mention has some pretty major implications beyond reducing our immigration levels ...

Bagpuss
1st August 2006, 09:11
Leave the EU. It's corrupt, expensive, and vindictive.

And will all the big businesses (that employ the majority of the contractors on this board) please turn off the light switches as they leave the UK!

stackpole
1st August 2006, 09:21
Fist, what about all those retiring? As the population gets older we need immigrants (Or more women giving birth) to prop up the increasingly elderly population. We hear that argument a lot, but it is fundamentally flawed. Immigrants also get old and retire, adding to the problem. It will require an ever-increasing number of immigrants a year to keep up, leading to an uncontrolled pyramid situation.

The population gets older because it is living longer. If it is living longer it can work longer.
The you've got the issue of emigrants those who come back, which I suspect is a fair number of people - do they have to wait also?They already qualify. They are knocked off the quota.
Second, completely agree. Except for the genuine political refugees who are in danger of being killed if they go back. Controversial on this board I know, but that's the looney lefty in me.I agree, but claimants cause our biggest headaches. 90% of the ones we've had over the past eight years are in no such danger. Process them offshore, before they get here, or not at all.
Problem with this simple solution is the EU freedom of movement/labour thing. It's illegal under EU law to restrict it within the EU so to avoid the problem we'd have to withdraw from the EU. That's a whole different kettle of fish, and simply isn't going to happen any time soon, not too mention has some pretty major implications beyond reducing our immigration levels ...We just do it. Countries in the EU flout the EU laws all the time when it suits them. It can be done if HMG want it enough. Remember that every other EU country apart from us has restricted the influx of the new eastern Europeans, and that was within the laws.

DimPrawn
1st August 2006, 09:22
First, what about all those retiring? As the population gets older we need immigrants (Or more women giving birth) to prop up the increasingly elderly population.

As these immigrants grow older, who is going to look after them? More immigrants of course to look after our children and theirs. Who is going to look after all our children as they grow old? More immigrants of course.

Can you see a flaw in this logic for a country with a very high population density, water shortages, transport issues, housing shortages, power/fuel supply issues and collapsing public services?

No, thought not.

snaw
1st August 2006, 09:48
The immigrants/aging population thing is a fact. All very well saying people can work till an older age but what if they don't want to - you can't force people not to retire. The baby boomers are fast heading for retirement, and when they do someone has to help provide because current birth rates aren't anywhere near high enough to support this impending demographic shift.

That's not to say I'm in favour of unfettered immigration, but to say the arguement for immigration is flawed is hiding from an unescapable demographic fact. Or even better follow the French lead on this one and make it easier for working mums to have kids and encourage a sensible policy to encourage more people to have them, younger (Though how you stop the teenage mums doing it for the money I dunno).

Viktor
1st August 2006, 09:56
Remember that every other EU country apart from us has restricted the influx of the new eastern Europeans, and that was within the laws.[/QUOTE]

Let me give you the current list:

Sweden
Ireland
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Greece
Finland
United Kingdom

I wonder what happened in Ireland and Sweden since 2004...

stackpole
1st August 2006, 10:08
The immigrants/aging population thing is a fact. All very well saying people can work till an older age but what if they don't want to - you can't force people not to retire.I'm afraid you can, and you must. This isn't heaven we live in.

Where do you see it all going in 50 years time then? At current rates of increase our population will be double and our space and infrastructure, which is struggling to cope now, will be hopelessly inadequate. But we will STILL need more immigrants to feed the ever-increasing numbers of elderly because "you can't force people not to retire".

The journey from now to that point will become more and more unpleasant. We need a better plan than that.

meridian
1st August 2006, 10:35
I wonder what happened in Ireland and Sweden since 2004...
According to my Irish in-laws, "a feck of a lot of Poles, but at least they're better than the Romanians and Nigerians".

DodgyAgent
1st August 2006, 10:42
I'm afraid you can, and you must. This isn't heaven we live in.

Where do you see it all going in 50 years time then? At current rates of increase our population will be double and our space and infrastructure, which is struggling to cope now, will be hopelessly inadequate. But we will STILL need more immigrants to feed the ever-increasing numbers of elderly because "you can't force people not to retire".

The journey from now to that point will become more and more unpleasant. We need a better plan than that.


What I find interesting is how poor some of you are at understanding how human nature in conjunction with market forces has a way of sorting things out for themselves. I suspect few of you really bother to look at history and that even fewer have little capacity to envisage the future.

The whole point of the European Union (apart from stopping the Germans from invading France and Poland) is that there should be a free flow of labour and capital. What is happening is that the UK is indeed becoming a crowded and expensive place to live, work and invest. This will mean that investment will shift to countries where it is cheaper thus creating a self balancing economic system. So if I were to set up a recruitment business with resourcers I would seriously consider somewhere like Hungary or Lithuania and maybe run a smaller sales operation in the UK.

What prevents the markets from sorting out demograhic inbalances are governments wishing to engineer specific outcomes themselves. For example the reason why no one investe in the cheaper North of England, Scotland or France is because in the case of the first two the work forces have been trained "not to work" and in the case of the latter border controls and job destroying employment laws and taxes have completely killed off any interest from investors.

Lithuania has reached melting point in terms of economic growth because it has a flat tax (low ) regime that has encouraged vast amounts of entrepreneurial activity in the country. Likewise the Irish government has also built a tax friendly system of government that has encouraged investment. The UK also is still living off the business friendly environment (slowly being eroded by NL) created by the Thatcher government.

The problem lies with the governments of France, Germany and Italy who's economies would be kicked nicely up the arse with a dose of labour and service competition.

If a country is having problems then you can bet your pension (if you have one left after the govt has squandered or taxed it) that the blame can be laid squarely at the foot of socialism.

snaw
1st August 2006, 10:46
I'm afraid you can, and you must. This isn't heaven we live in.

Where do you see it all going in 50 years time then? At current rates of increase our population will be double and our space and infrastructure, which is struggling to cope now, will be hopelessly inadequate. But we will STILL need more immigrants to feed the ever-increasing numbers of elderly because "you can't force people not to retire".

The journey from now to that point will become more and more unpleasant. We need a better plan than that.

Essentially all you're doing by increasing the retirment age is prolonging the issue. Plus all those old cogers got a vote and they're a pretty sizable chunk of the population - are they gonna be voting for pensions at 70 - I doubt it somehow, and no party will take the chance of pissing them all off.

What's the options available to at least maintain the working population - move retirement till later, increase the birth rate and fill the shortfall with immigration. The right kind of immigrants are net contributers, even over the long term and by that stage will have earned the right to retire here.

Then there's rising health costs with the ever increasing age of the population, and an equal drop in the numbers of those people working ...

To say immigration is bad, is for me a wee bit too much thinking with the heart and not using the head. We've got serious issues in the future which need addressing, and immigration is one part of the solution. IMO.

snaw
1st August 2006, 11:01
What prevents the markets from sorting out demograhic inbalances are governments wishing to engineer specific outcomes themselves. For example the reason why no one investe in the cheaper North of England, Scotland or France is because in the case of the first two the work forces have been trained "not to work" and in the case of the latter border controls and job destroying employment laws and taxes have completely killed off any interest from investors.

I'd have to disagree with you a wee bit on that first paragraph as it stands vis-a-vis Scotland. You're probably close but miss one big factor in that because the jobs are all in the South-East then the best talent in Scotland, generally, heads south to take advantage. I think it's something like 10% of Scots in the UK work in England - that's a pretty sizeable part of the population, especially the working population.

Cor me it's catch-22, people as a whole (Obviously there are exceptions) will work when there are jobs available, but once you create that sort of unemployment blackhole the only companies attracted to it are the low skilled, low paying kind.


If a country is having problems then you can bet your pension (if you have one left after the govt has squandered or taxed it) that the blame can be laid squarely at the foot of socialism.


As for who's fault it is - I think you're way off the mark. If you're gonna blame someone for this then Maggie Thatcher can take a fair share of that blame, there were plenty of hard working people where I'm from when I grew up, who would all have been happy to take jobs on offer. Except she came along and destroyed the local industries, and gave nothing in return. By the time the 'socialists' got into power the unemployment blackspots and social problems were well and truly entrenched.

DodgyAgent
1st August 2006, 12:44
I'd have to disagree with you a wee bit on that first paragraph as it stands vis-a-vis Scotland. You're probably close but miss one big factor in that because the jobs are all in the South-East then the best talent in Scotland, generally, heads south to take advantage. I think it's something like 10% of Scots in the UK work in England - that's a pretty sizeable part of the population, especially the working population.

Cor me it's catch-22, people as a whole (Obviously there are exceptions) will work when there are jobs available, but once you create that sort of unemployment blackhole the only companies attracted to it are the low skilled, low paying kind.




As for who's fault it is - I think you're way off the mark. If you're gonna blame someone for this then Maggie Thatcher can take a fair share of that blame, there were plenty of hard working people where I'm from when I grew up, who would all have been happy to take jobs on offer. Except she came along and destroyed the local industries, and gave nothing in return. By the time the 'socialists' got into power the unemployment blackspots and social problems were well and truly entrenched.

we have had this argument before and you have yet to argue a proper case for these businesses to have been supported at taxpayers expense. The local industries were destroyed because they were not competitive. This is what has happened to Eastern Europe but instead of moaning and sitting back on welfare handouts (you will never work again payments) the Poles got on their bikes or buses and travelled to where the work was.

You talk about giving something in return I would like to know exactly what that should have been. You condemne maggie yet you offer no alternative doctrine. If she had never come to power the UK would today be on a par with Poland.

The jobs are in the South East because the South East enjoys a culture of freedom end entrepreneurial spirit. The work force reflects this. In scotland the so called work force is a drug/alcohol crazed population of no hopers thanks to the curse of welfare. In scotland entrepreneur is a dirty word.

If unemployment blackspots are so impossible to change why is it that Lithuania, which was a far more serious and larger unemployment blackspot than anywhere in the UK 5 years ago, now doing so well. Also why is it that all your so-called blackspots such as Glasgow, Newcastle and Liverpool now cannot get enough Polish workers despite having such a huge population of their own unemployed workers?

The answer lies in welfare.

stackpole
1st August 2006, 12:48
Essentially all you're doing by increasing the retirment age is prolonging the issue.How does it prolong the issue? It would improve the worker-to-retired ratio, which is what your argument is all about.
Plus all those old cogers got a vote and they're a pretty sizable chunk of the population - are they gonna be voting for pensions at 70 - I doubt it somehow, and no party will take the chance of pissing them all off.Maybe, but if all three main parties say the same thing, and we aren't far away from that now, who will they vote for?
What's the options available to at least maintain the working population - move retirement till later, increase the birth rate and fill the shortfall with immigration. The right kind of immigrants are net contributers, even over the long term and by that stage will have earned the right to retire here.How good or bad they are isn't an issue. The issue is space and infrastructure overload, as I outlined in my last post. Even with a stable population we are running out of resources in the UK.
Then there's rising health costs with the ever increasing age of the population, and an equal drop in the numbers of those people working ...I think we've been over this ratio before. Remember, immigrants get old too, and will add the the problem, and the problem will spiral as a result.
To say immigration is bad, is for me a wee bit too much thinking with the heart and not using the head. We've got serious issues in the future which need addressing, and immigration is one part of the solution. IMO.I have never said that immigration is bad, I say increasing the population through immigration is bad. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

John Galt
1st August 2006, 12:59
Essentially all you're doing by increasing the retirment age is prolonging the issue. Plus all those old cogers got a vote and they're a pretty sizable chunk of the population - are they gonna be voting for pensions at 70 - I doubt it somehow, and no party will take the chance of pissing them all off.

What's the options available to at least maintain the working population - move retirement till later, increase the birth rate and fill the shortfall with immigration. The right kind of immigrants are net contributers, even over the long term and by that stage will have earned the right to retire here.

Then there's rising health costs with the ever increasing age of the population, and an equal drop in the numbers of those people working ...

To say immigration is bad, is for me a wee bit too much thinking with the heart and not using the head. We've got serious issues in the future which need addressing, and immigration is one part of the solution. IMO.


It is not a case of not using our heads - this country is desperately overcrowded; there is no 2 ways about that. The infrastructures of our major cities are on the point of collapse yet we are bringing in more and more without any kind of regulation - net immigration last year was about 900,00 - according to NL figures that should have plugged the labour gap! As far as increasing the retirement age - this would be totally unnecessary if the Government hadn't raided the state pension funds.

DodgyAgent
1st August 2006, 13:03
It is not a case of not using our heads - this country is desperately overcrowded; there is no 2 ways about that. The infrastructures of our major cities are on the point of collapse yet we are bringing in more and more without any kind of regulation - net immigration last year was about 900,00 - according to NL figures that should have plugged the labour gap! As far as increasing the retirement age - this would be totally unnecessary if the Government hadn't raided the state pension funds.

we should give our own army of 3.7 million unemployed the same privileges as the Poles.. remove welfare.
If we did this then we could slap up border controls until all but the truly unemployable were working and then review the situation.

Bagpuss
1st August 2006, 13:06
What prevents the markets from sorting out demograhic inbalances are governments wishing to engineer specific outcomes themselves. For example the reason why no one investe in the cheaper North of England, Scotland or France is because in the case of the first two the work forces have been trained "not to work"

Can you tell me what you mean by people 'trained not to work'?
When I look around the major cities of 'the North' (and I'm not sure what you mean by that, maybe north of Watford?) I see major investment from industry. Look at a city like Leeds it's bustling with investment from banks and financial institutions etc. If you want to believe the stereotypes from 20 years ago still exist then firstly have a look around the newtowns in the South East, you will easily find those 'trained not to work' and it isn't because of lack of investment.

DodgyAgent
1st August 2006, 13:19
Can you tell me what you mean by people 'trained not to work'?
When I look around the major cities of 'the North' (and I'm not sure what you mean by that, maybe north of Watford?) I see major investment from industry. Look at a city like Leeds it's bustling with investment from banks and financial institutions etc. If you want to believe the stereotypes from 20 years ago still exist then firstly have a look around the newtowns in the South East, you will easily find those 'trained not to work' and it isn't because of lack of investment.

Welfare is effectively paying someone money "not to work". In a society where thre are no jobs then maybe there is justification for this. We have a society that is full of jobs yet we have 3.7 million people who are either unemployed or are on disability benefit. What is going on? there is a reason for this and it is because welfare dependents are cruelly dependent on those who support such an evil system. One of the worst things you can do to a human being is deprive them of the ability to work which is what the left have done. The reason that this evil persists is again because the rest of us are made to feel guilt so we happily give our taxes knowing (falsely) that:

a. The poor will not be our problem
b. We are doing them a favour

Unfortunatly the poor do become our problem as they resent being excluded from society and return the so-called "favour" of welfare by committing the most crime and anti social behaviour.

The Poles have no jobs but nor do they have welfare. What they do have is motivation (which is the thing that welfare removes) so they have a huge advantage over our workforce.

I can already see what is happening amongst University students from middle class families. Because they have money they decide to go and travel the world or f*** about for a while after Uni and "maybe" get a job. I have seen it here with young graduates who take the view "I will see what it is like and maybe move on in 9 months" The polish attitude is that the job is very precious and that they will do their utmost to prove themselves.

Who would you employ?

The Pole or the English graduate?

These people will be running the UK in 15 years time

snaw
1st August 2006, 13:31
we have had this argument before and you have yet to argue a proper case for these businesses to have been supported at taxpayers expense. The local industries were destroyed because they were not competitive. This is what has happened to Eastern Europe but instead of moaning and sitting back on welfare handouts (you will never work again payments) the Poles got on their bikes or buses and travelled to where the work was.

You talk about giving something in return I would like to know exactly what that should have been. You condemne maggie yet you offer no alternative doctrine. If she had never come to power the UK would today be on a par with Poland.

The jobs are in the South East because the South East enjoys a culture of freedom end entrepreneurial spirit. The work force reflects this. In scotland the so called work force is a drug/alcohol crazed population of no hopers thanks to the curse of welfare. In scotland entrepreneur is a dirty word.

If unemployment blackspots are so impossible to change why is it that Lithuania, which was a far more serious and larger unemployment blackspot than anywhere in the UK 5 years ago, now doing so well. Also why is it that all your so-called blackspots such as Glasgow, Newcastle and Liverpool now cannot get enough Polish workers despite having such a huge population of their own unemployed workers?

The answer lies in welfare.

We have had this arguement, and as usual you didn't listen then so I doubt you'll listen now. I never said they should have been supported, at any point. I've always said that once she'd ripped them apart these areas got completely neglected, we now see the effects from this. It could have been done in a completely different way is the case I've always stated.

You've got a nerve now blaming those same people for the economic disaster that befell them, a complete lack of knowledge in stating that they should leave to get work elsewhere (Many do), and an utter lack of understanding of community outside of the priveleged south - not everyone has the inclination, the money or the desire to move to the south of England to chase a job. This doesn't make them social parasites any more than the poles who stay in Poland are, for choosing not to leave the place they know best.

Your comments on Scotland I find grossly offensive, and as per usual completely uniformed - you really don't have the capability to see the world outside of your narrow little tunnel vision, do you? There are plenty of Scottish entrepreneurs, something we have a rich tradition in, and calling the workforce a "so called work force is a drug/alcohol crazed population of no hopers thanks to the curse of welfare" completely misses the truth, not to mention being pretty feckin insulting to a large number of people - wtf makes you so special you can denegrate others in this manner?

The jobs are in the South East cause it's the base for most of the major industries/services in the UK. London is a world leader in many areas, and subsequently get's all the talent, the local region reaps the benefits. The entrepreneurial spirit you mention is fueled by a large percentage of this talent, a lot of which doesn't come from the SE but instead moves here because that's where the opportunities are. There are plenty of pockets in Scotland where this is true also, and a few in the SE where the reverse is true. If you give people the opportunities then many will take them.

You quoting Lithuania is just plain fecking funny. It's unemployment figures are down for two major reason's - mass emigration since joining the EU, and foreign investment because of cheap labour (Not something Scotland can compete with unfortunately), it still has serious issues with long term unemployed (ANd about the same unemploymed rate as Scotland). It helps there is a government in place who make it easy for business too come there, I'd be all for that in Scotland too but it's a bit much to blame the people you condemn for this not happening - I'm not so certain it's something they have complete control over ...

bobsmithldn
1st August 2006, 13:32
I'd always employ Polish chicks ...

DodgyAgent
1st August 2006, 13:33
I'd always employ Polish chicks ...

Is that with or without Dicks? :)

Hart-floot
1st August 2006, 13:34
If unemployment blackspots are so impossible to change why is it that Lithuania, which was a far more serious and larger unemployment blackspot than anywhere in the UK 5 years ago, now doing so well. Also why is it that all your so-called blackspots such as Glasgow, Newcastle and Liverpool now cannot get enough Polish workers despite having such a huge population of their own unemployed workers?

The answer lies in welfare.

Lithuania has reduced it's unemployment in large part due to the emigration of its workforce. Have you been to Dublin lately?

The situation in Liverpool and Glasgow you describe is pretty similar to the pattern found in USA cities like LA or Miami. Where locals cannot afford to take the jobs that pay around or below minimum wage especially if they have kids but the recent immigrants will. One of the reasons why there is such a large black underclass in the US.

DodgyAgent
1st August 2006, 13:41
Lithuania has reduced it's unemployment in large part due to the emigration of its workforce. Have you been to Dublin lately?

The situation in Liverpool and Glasgow you describe is pretty similar to the pattern found in USA cities like LA or Miami. Where locals cannot afford to take the jobs that pay around or below minimum wage especially if they have kids but the recent immigrants will. One of the reasons why there is such a large black underclass in the US.

No the reason that there is such a large black underclass in the US is because their society does not bother to give them a decent education. At least the communists educated their people.

So why is Poland only growing at 5% then

That is a classic piece of disinformation. The difference between Poland and Lithuania is that Lithuania has a low tax regime and has an agenda to make it easier for businesses to operate. In Poland the country is run by a couple of right wing twins who are engaged in a war with their communist enemies of the past and who have not the slightest incliniation to kick start the economy.

They are like some of you lot they still live with their mothers.

sasguru
1st August 2006, 13:54
He he! While you're wasting time on the forum, I can see my Lithuanian employee (whom we call the "SAS robot" due to his efficiency and attention to detail) busy tapping away - and I bet he's not typing shite on some forum.
Carry on fiddling while Rome burns, boys and girls ... :cool1:

sasguru
1st August 2006, 14:07
No the reason that there is such a large black underclass in the US is because their society does not bother to give them a decent education.

You're not being consistent, DA. According to all you've said before it's not the state's job to "give" education. It's up to the person to "get" it.

DodgyAgent
1st August 2006, 14:25
You're not being consistent, DA. According to all you've said before it's not the state's job to "give" education. It's up to the person to "get" it.

No SASguru. I was saying that the state should harness the resources for education and set the standards and supervisory bodies. The schools should be independent of the state and the children and their parents should be given choices about which schools to send their children.

Class sizes should be no larger than 20 and all kids should be made to play sport, play a musical instrument and learn a foreign language or two. Where kids have disfunctional parents then the choice of school can be made by local social services or other more functional members of an extended families.

The choice element where schools can be run under licence would sharpen the performance of the supplier schools pretty quickly.

Bagpuss
1st August 2006, 15:27
Welfare is effectively paying someone money "not to work". In a society where thre are no jobs then maybe there is justification for this. We have a society that is full of jobs yet we have 3.7 million people who are either unemployed or are on disability benefit. What is going on? there is a reason for this and it is because welfare dependents are cruelly dependent on those who support such an evil system. One of the worst things you can do to a human being is deprive them of the ability to work which is what the left have done. The reason that this evil persists is again because the rest of us are made to feel guilt so we happily give our taxes knowing (falsely) that:

a. The poor will not be our problem
b. We are doing them a favour

Unfortunatly the poor do become our problem as they resent being excluded from society and return the so-called "favour" of welfare by committing the most crime and anti social behaviour.




But why are you blaming this on "the north"? Your scenario isn't one I recognise. There are many thriving economic regions outside of the South East you know, have a look around before you start to stereotype.

DodgyAgent
1st August 2006, 19:23
But why are you blaming this on "the north"? Your scenario isn't one I recognise. There are many thriving economic regions outside of the South East you know, have a look around before you start to stereotype.

I am not blaming it on the North I am blaming it on the divisiveness of socialism. I agree about your thriving areas outside of London and the South East but why then are there so many people unemployed in these regions when there are so many tens of thousands of Eastern Europeans taking up jobs? The reason is welfare. The ambitious scots and the ambitious northerners are the few who either are entrepreneurial or have the wit and determination to seek work in the South East. Those that are left are stuck with public sector jobs or unemployment.

xoggoth
1st August 2006, 19:38
There are indeed some areas outside the SE that are more dynamic but hardly lots and for the most part Dodgy is not far wrong. Check these links.

Edinburgh guide (http://www.edinburghguide.com/edgforum/viewtopic.php?t=2924)

North East (http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/display.var.775607.0.public_sector_cash_funding_ne _economy.php)




Figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research show that in southern regions, dependence on the state has barely risen, while in northern areas it has jumped dramatically.

The regional breakdown shows that the North-East now relies for 61.5 per cent of its economic output on the public sector.

The figures are in sharp contrast to the South-East, where private enterprise is the main generator of income.

Business leaders said the figures for the North-East renewed worries that the public sector was "crowding out" the wealth-creating private sector.

Sir Digby Jones, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, said: "I'm very worried about this.

"The private sector is responsible for around 62 per cent of GDP in China - a communist, totalitarian regime."

DodgyAgent
1st August 2006, 19:42
We have had this arguement, and as usual you didn't listen then so I doubt you'll listen now. I never said they should have been supported, at any point. I've always said that once she'd ripped them apart these areas got completely neglected, we now see the effects from this. It could have been done in a completely different way is the case I've always stated.

You've got a nerve now blaming those same people for the economic disaster that befell them, a complete lack of knowledge in stating that they should leave to get work elsewhere (Many do), and an utter lack of understanding of community outside of the priveleged south - not everyone has the inclination, the money or the desire to move to the south of England to chase a job. This doesn't make them social parasites any more than the poles who stay in Poland are, for choosing not to leave the place they know best.

Your comments on Scotland I find grossly offensive, and as per usual completely uniformed - you really don't have the capability to see the world outside of your narrow little tunnel vision, do you? There are plenty of Scottish entrepreneurs, something we have a rich tradition in, and calling the workforce a "so called work force is a drug/alcohol crazed population of no hopers thanks to the curse of welfare" completely misses the truth, not to mention being pretty feckin insulting to a large number of people - wtf makes you so special you can denegrate others in this manner?

The jobs are in the South East cause it's the base for most of the major industries/services in the UK. London is a world leader in many areas, and subsequently get's all the talent, the local region reaps the benefits. The entrepreneurial spirit you mention is fueled by a large percentage of this talent, a lot of which doesn't come from the SE but instead moves here because that's where the opportunities are. There are plenty of pockets in Scotland where this is true also, and a few in the SE where the reverse is true. If you give people the opportunities then many will take them.

You quoting Lithuania is just plain fecking funny. It's unemployment figures are down for two major reason's - mass emigration since joining the EU, and foreign investment because of cheap labour (Not something Scotland can compete with unfortunately), it still has serious issues with long term unemployed (ANd about the same unemploymed rate as Scotland). It helps there is a government in place who make it easy for business too come there, I'd be all for that in Scotland too but it's a bit much to blame the people you condemn for this not happening - I'm not so certain it's something they have complete control over ...

Quite apart from your patronising "protection (as if they need you to protect them) of the unemployed of Scotland and The North of England". "Listen I am one of them dont you know" I can say what I like but you cant cos mate I am one of them. bollox

Just a few points. Just how exactly could the miners, car workers and printers have been let down gently? Particularly when they were being exploited by a bunch of uncompromising union leaders who were using these battles to fight a class war?

Secondly why is it 3.7 million workers show no sign of wanting to take up the jobs that are being done by Eastern Europeans ? Particularly in Scotland

I am not blaming the people at all. The unemployed are innatly as capable as you or I. I am blaming your self serving socialist friends who exploit the unemployed by keeping them on welfare and thus stripping them of aspirations, confidence and ultimatly their dignity. You people call this "looking after the poor!!!". I call it finding people who are poor and finding people who could be poor and then keeping them poor. After all no one is going to condemn people who are seen to be giving out money even though giving is one of the worst things you can do to a human being.

You are a confused snob snaw. You think that just because you come from a working class background you are above criticism. Your guilt about your roots and your relative success is played out by ypour support for a system that denies your so called fellow working class "brother" the opportunity to escape (as you have) from the clutches of the state.

Fungus
1st August 2006, 19:53
As for who's fault it is - I think you're way off the mark. If you're gonna blame someone for this then Maggie Thatcher can take a fair share of that blame, there were plenty of hard working people where I'm from when I grew up, who would all have been happy to take jobs on offer. Except she came along and destroyed the local industries, and gave nothing in return. By the time the 'socialists' got into power the unemployment blackspots and social problems were well and truly entrenched.

You mean like the mines? Destroyed by Scargill who tried to use them for his own narrow political ends.

You mean like British Leyland? Destroyed by militant unions. Though the final breath was a long time coming.

You mean like BT? Floated off by Mrs T. and a great success.

Or Rolls Royce? A great success story, being one of the largest suppliers of aero engines for commercial airliners.

Or British Aerospace?

Or Vodaphone? Created by Mrs T. giving a telecoms licence to an upstart namely Racal Instruments. And look how successful they are.

Or Nissan in Sunderland? A Japanese company, and I think the world's most productive Nissan factory.

There are many great companies in the UK.

She (Mrs T.) did not destroy industries. What she did do was stop the creation of non-jobs by the state. Unfortunately Flash Gordon has undone that and we now have a massive public sector with fantastic pension rights which we will pay for. No doubt they will vote New Liar.

I loathe the dependency so beloved of Socialists. I think the problem with the North is that there is still a lack of self confidence, which manifests itself as class hatred, jealousy and a lack of entrepreneurial spirit among all too many.

xoggoth
1st August 2006, 19:54
Cant be bothered with all this, not in mood. Accordingly I am nominating Dodgy as my spokesman as not a damn thing on the basic principles I disagree with.

PS Although naturally I would have said it much nicer about it!

Fungus
1st August 2006, 20:01
Cant be bothered with all this, not in mood. Accordingly I am nominating Dodgy as my spokesman as not a damn thing on the basic principles I disagree with.

PS Although naturally I would have said it much nicer about it!

Yeah. I second that. We want Dodgy for President, Emperor and lifelong God. All hail Dodgy.

DodgyAgent
2nd August 2006, 05:04
Yeah. I second that. We want Dodgy for President, Emperor and lifelong God. All hail Dodgy.

I will as part of my manifesto to clean up politics begin by removing the word tax from the English vocabulary. It will be replaced by:










































MARGINS :D :D :D :D

Bagpuss
2nd August 2006, 08:48
There are indeed some areas outside the SE that are more dynamic but hardly lots and for the most part Dodgy is not far wrong. Check these links.

Edinburgh guide (http://www.edinburghguide.com/edgforum/viewtopic.php?t=2924)

North East (http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/display.var.775607.0.public_sector_cash_funding_ne _economy.php)




Figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research show that in southern regions, dependence on the state has barely risen, while in northern areas it has jumped dramatically.

The regional breakdown shows that the North-East now relies for 61.5 per cent of its economic output on the public sector.

The figures are in sharp contrast to the South-East, where private enterprise is the main generator of income.

Business leaders said the figures for the North-East renewed worries that the public sector was "crowding out" the wealth-creating private sector.

Sir Digby Jones, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, said: "I'm very worried about this.

"The private sector is responsible for around 62 per cent of GDP in China - a communist, totalitarian regime."

Ahh I see we're talking about the North East and extrapolating to the whole of 'the north'. Of course the (numerous) successful people of places like Cheshire and North Yorks (for example) might disagree. If I had only ever been to Basingstoke/Harlow/High Wycombe/East Kent/South East London/East London I might be spouting stereotypes about the deprevation and welfare dependency in the south, of course I know there are some nice areas too, in between the sh1t holes.

snaw
2nd August 2006, 11:22
Quite apart from your patronising "protection (as if they need you to protect them) of the unemployed of Scotland and The North of England". "Listen I am one of them dont you know" I can say what I like but you cant cos mate I am one of them. bollox

Just a few points. Just how exactly could the miners, car workers and printers have been let down gently? Particularly when they were being exploited by a bunch of uncompromising union leaders who were using these battles to fight a class war?

Secondly why is it 3.7 million workers show no sign of wanting to take up the jobs that are being done by Eastern Europeans ? Particularly in Scotland

I am not blaming the people at all. The unemployed are innatly as capable as you or I. I am blaming your self serving socialist friends who exploit the unemployed by keeping them on welfare and thus stripping them of aspirations, confidence and ultimatly their dignity. You people call this "looking after the poor!!!". I call it finding people who are poor and finding people who could be poor and then keeping them poor. After all no one is going to condemn people who are seen to be giving out money even though giving is one of the worst things you can do to a human being.

You are a confused snob snaw. You think that just because you come from a working class background you are above criticism. Your guilt about your roots and your relative success is played out by ypour support for a system that denies your so called fellow working class "brother" the opportunity to escape (as you have) from the clutches of the state.

I'm a confused snob?!?! You're half right, I'm confused with your logic in calling me a snob. I don't see how you come to the conclusion I believe above critisism, I got no guilt at all about my roots (I'm proud of them), and got no issues with my success nor anyone else's for that matter, more power to them. Typical DA - I'm sure it'll not sink in but you really need to stop making assumptions for others based on your own very limited world view. I don't think people who don't come from those roots are incapable of speaking for/about them, I just think YOU are. You've got zero idea of the reality, but lequally loads of patronising views on what's best for them.

Your points - the people you mention could have been let down gently by trying to encourage other industries to replace the ones destryoyed, there are many ways for governments to do this, but MT didn't give a toss about a group of people who were never going to win her any more seats. Witness the absolute collapse of the Tory party of Scotland during her reign. I have never argued for a continuation of those industries because clearly they had issues (And I've stated this to you many times, but you never feckin listen), I have repeatedly critisised the policies afterwards, which basically were ones of neglect. I blame the union leaders just as much for pursuing the path of conflict as much as they did, but that was never my fight and will never be. I grew up in the aftermath and it's that I have an issue with.

As for unemployment, I'm all for people helping themselves, and have no sympathy for people who abuse the system, but I don't make your assumption that those 3.7 million people are. The jobs available aren't distributed in the areas where they all live, and I don't believe people should have to decamp form their homes to do so.

The particularily in Scotland bit I think is the icing on the cake - London actually is the worst, and I imagine where most of the jobs are:


Unemployment in the UK, Jan-Mar 2006, by country/region

Country/Region LFS Unemployed (1000's) Rate of Unemployment (%)


London 301 7.6
North East 82 6.7
Yorks./Humberside 134 5.3
Scotland 139 5.3
West Midlands 137 5.1
North West 163 4.9
East Midlands 111 4.9
East 138 4.8
Wales 65 4.7
South East 191 4.4
N. Ireland 35 4.4
South West 92 3.6

Equally you waffle on about Lithunania as being a model of success, a country which still has an unemployment rate above ours, based partly on a huge exodus to the west and a long term unemployment rate which is extremaly high. There are better examples of socialist countries where the things you critisise have equally resulted in rip roaring success, and an amazing quality of life.

I don't for a second believe any of these issues are anything less than extremely complex, and influenced by a great number of factors. You on the other hand consistently on this board see them in black and white - stop welfare, provide education and the word will be a rosy place. Want to give us an example in the world of this Utopia you imagine or does it just esxist purely as a theory in your head?

Fungus - learn to read, no one was attacking privitisation or calling for a return to state ownership so save your pontificating on Mrs T's successes for another thread and stick to the topic at hand; though somehow we managed to get from immigration to DA banging on his again about his time tested theories on what's best for the underpriveleged in Britain.

John Galt
2nd August 2006, 11:45
I'm a confused snob?!?! You're half right, I'm confused with your logic in calling me a snob. I don't see how you come to the conclusion I believe above critisism, I got no guilt at all about my roots (I'm proud of them), and got no issues with my success nor anyone else's for that matter, more power to them. Typical DA - I'm sure it'll not sink in but you really need to stop making assumptions for others based on your own very limited world view. I don't think people who don't come from those roots are incapable of speaking for/about them, I just think YOU are. You've got zero idea of the reality, but lequally loads of patronising views on what's best for them.

Your points - the people you mention could have been let down gently by trying to encourage other industries to replace the ones destryoyed, there are many ways for governments to do this, but MT didn't give a toss about a group of people who were never going to win her any more seats. Witness the absolute collapse of the Tory party of Scotland during her reign. I have never argued for a continuation of those industries because clearly they had issues (And I've stated this to you many times, but you never feckin listen), I have repeatedly critisised the policies afterwards, which basically were ones of neglect. I blame the union leaders just as much for pursuing the path of conflict as much as they did, but that was never my fight and will never be. I grew up in the aftermath and it's that I have an issue with.

As for unemployment, I'm all for people helping themselves, and have no sympathy for people who abuse the system, but I don't make your assumption that those 3.7 million people are. The jobs available aren't distributed in the areas where they all live, and I don't believe people should have to decamp form their homes to do so.

The particularily in Scotland bit I think is the icing on the cake - London actually is the worst, and I imagine where most of the jobs are:



Equally you waffle on about Lithunania as being a model of success, a country which still has an unemployment rate above ours, based partly on a huge exodus to the west and a long term unemployment rate which is extremaly high. There are better examples of socialist countries where the things you critisise have equally resulted in rip roaring success, and an amazing quality of life.

I don't for a second believe any of these issues are anything less than extremely complex, and influenced by a great number of factors. You on the other hand consistently on this board see them in black and white - stop welfare, provide education and the word will be a rosy place. Want to give us an example in the world of this Utopia you imagine or does it just esxist purely as a theory in your head?

Fungus - learn to read, no one was attacking privitisation or calling for a return to state ownership so save your pontificating on Mrs T's successes for another thread and stick to the topic at hand; though somehow we managed to get from immigration to DA banging on his again about his time tested theories on what's best for the underpriveleged in Britain.

But Snaw haven't you just defeated your own argument. If unemployment rates are highest in London and that is where all the jobs are either there are loads of scroungers around who are encouraged to remain so because of ludicrous benefit payments or there really are loads of jobs to go round and we don't need immigrants

xoggoth
2nd August 2006, 11:45
If you read both links bagpuss you would see there are other sentences referrring to the North and some figures for all regions, only one of the items is specificallly about the North East. Admittedly the North East is the worst case by a long way.

Emperor Dalek
2nd August 2006, 11:50
He said: "It's right the national exchequer should transfer money to poorer people and that you have some kind of system that protects the poorest people.
I sympathise with poor people, but giving them more money won't help them.

Fungus
2nd August 2006, 12:06
Snaw/Snore: Learn to read. You were attacking Mrs T. Remember? I responded to that.

Snaw said: "Your points - the people you mention could have been let down gently by trying to encourage other industries to replace the ones destryoyed, there are many ways for governments to do this, but MT didn't give a toss about a group of people who were never going to win her any more seats. "

What you suggest does not work. If you keep people comfortable in fake jobs, you keep the cost of labour high due to wage competition with the fake employers, and hence companies cannot get off the ground.

Snaw said: "The jobs available aren't distributed in the areas where they all live, and I don't believe people should have to decamp form their homes to do so."

Oh. So I have to subsidise someone to be unemployed because they cannot be bothered to get off their backside and find a job somewhere else do I? Damned lazy good for nothings.

Snaw said: "I got no guilt at all about my roots (I'm proud of them)"

I've never understood so-called working class pride. My ancestors are mostly working class - knife grinders, miners, agricultural labourers - and I can't say I am proud that they had to do menial jobs but I am proud that in the 19th century one of them bettered himself becoming a skilled engineer and owner of an engineering works. He pulled himself up out of the dirt by dint of hard work and as a consequence his descendants did well for themselves.

Fungus

BlasterBates
2nd August 2006, 12:17
ee ay up an' I thawt we ad it tough..

My ancestors lived at bottom of a lake.

snaw
2nd August 2006, 12:23
But Snaw haven't you just defeated your own argument. If unemployment rates are highest in London and that is where all the jobs are either there are loads of scroungers around who are encouraged to remain so because of ludicrous benefit payments or there really are loads of jobs to go round and we don't need immigrants

Christ almighty - I'm not arguing in favour of the current benefit system as it stands, have never done so and have no intention of ever doing so. Clear enough?

Just because I believe some form of benefit system is essential to cover for those people in society in need doesn't mean that I think what we have now is great. Just because there are jobs available doesn't mean everyone locally available fits the requirement or even would get those jobs, or indeed that people in other areas of the country should be forced to relocate to do those jobs. Sure, some people abuse the system when there are jobs available, that isn't an argument for getting rid of system entirely, nor an argument against the need for immigration.

The Lone Gunman
2nd August 2006, 12:25
Oh. So I have to subsidise someone to be unemployed because they cannot be bothered to get off their backside and find a job somewhere else do I? Damned lazy good for nothings.
Not having a pop at you, but this statement shows a lack of understanding of what is a much bigger issue and there will be a lot agreeing with you.

Simply. If all the unemployed moved to London, London would burst and all the infra structure would collapse. You are better off supporting them at home. The best solution would be to motivate non London centric businesses to move to the sticks. There are willing work forces, cheaper housing, much nicer rural areas and a lot less foreignors about the place.

It has been my experience that "Northeners" are filling their own low paid jobs and still have high unemployment. Most cleaners and burger flippers round here speak with local accents, whereas whilst in London this weekend I never saw a single cockerneee accented person doing any menial work.

John Galt
2nd August 2006, 12:30
Christ almighty - I'm not arguing in favour of the current benefit system as it stands, have never done so and have no intention of ever doing so. Clear enough?

Just because I believe some form of benefit system is essential to cover for those people in society in need doesn't mean that I think what we have now is great. Just because there are jobs available doesn't mean everyone locally available fits the requirement or even would get those jobs, or indeed that people in other areas of the country should be forced to relocate to do those jobs. Sure, some people abuse the system when there are jobs available, that isn't an argument for getting rid of system entirely, nor an argument against the need for immigration.

No need to shout! I see your argument Snaw but you are being really blinkered. How can you balance the need for immigration against almost 4 million unemployed? There is no need at all for anyone to be unemployed in this country. Why can't we have a system where benefit payments are increased BUT the claimant has to work for it doing community work etc? Surely this would solve everything and it would mean that people were not getting other people's money for doing feck all

Bagpuss
2nd August 2006, 12:40
It has been my experience that "Northeners" are filling their own low paid jobs and still have high unemployment. Most cleaners and burger flippers round here speak with local accents, whereas whilst in London this weekend I never saw a single cockerneee accented person doing any menial work.


What the hell are you talking about? I resent the implication that 'Northerners' are scroungers and being proped up by the south. Maybe this is true of some run down areas of the north east and samll areas Yorkshire/humberside where heavy industry was, but on the whole it is not.

Consider this..
"Recently described by the Financial Times as a genuine rival to 'overheated London' the North West is one of the most vibrant and dynamic parts of the UK. "
Yes the FT, but what would they know? Apparently this must be the benefit money! Rather than the local thriving private sector economy.

The Lone Gunman
2nd August 2006, 12:41
Also: It is in El Gordos interest (in some ways) as these migrant workers are keeping inflation down. The real rate for these jobs should be much higher but the migrants can get away with less because they share housing and dont pay tax or NI. The losses of tax and NI are less important than what would be massive inflation if wages actualy had to keep up with costs like housing and increased taxation.

Follow the German example. Force employers to offer reasonable rates and pay the same or better rates to migrants.

snaw
2nd August 2006, 12:47
Snaw/Snore: Learn to read.

Fungus/Fanny: You were attacking Mrs T. Remember? I responded to that.

No I attacked one of her policies, or more specifically her lack of policy as it related to areas that she left devastated. I think some of her other policies were much needed and did great good, if you lived in the right areas. I didn't attack her but I'll have a go if you want - I can't stand the old bint, never could, never will. Learn to read.

Fungus said "What you suggest does not work. If you keep people comfortable in fake jobs, you keep the cost of labour high due to wage competition with the fake employers, and hence companies cannot get off the ground. "

I don't recall suggesting keeping people in fake jobs. Learn to read.

Fungus said "Oh. So I have to subsidise someone to be unemployed because they cannot be bothered to get off their backside and find a job somewhere else do I? Damned lazy good for nothings. "

Well looking beyond the economic factors which might prevent someone relocating to entirely different part of the country to find a low paid job (Assuming they're the ones we're talking about), and the social factors (Childrens schooling, family, social networks, fear of the unknown), well yes you do. I don't think that should necessarily be a comfortable existence, but I got no problem with you having to help. Democracy I'm afraid, until you're in a majority who believe otherwise you'll just have to suck it up.

Fungus said "I've never understood so-called working class pride. My ancestors are mostly working class - knife grinders, miners, agricultural labourers - and I can't say I am proud that they had to do menial jobs but I am proud that in the 19th century one of them bettered himself becoming a skilled engineer and owner of an engineering works. He pulled himself up out of the dirt by dint of hard work and as a consequence his descendants did well for themselves. "

Well beyond the fact I was responding to a direct acusation by DA that I was somehow ashamed of my roots, I don't as a rule go around feeling full of working class pride. Equally I don't as a rule go around with a chip on my shoulder resenting those who aren't working class or came from there. As I've stated, fair play to you if you do well and get the chance to give your descendants a better life. To be honest I don't really understand what you're issue is - you're clearly proud that one of your ancestors did well, but should that mean every other person who's ancestors didn't should walk around feeling ashamed of themselves (Or as DA bizarrely suggests, feel ashamed that they the did)?

The Lone Gunman
2nd August 2006, 12:51
What the hell are you talking about? I resent the implication that 'Northerners' are scroungers and being proped up by the south. Maybe this is true of some run down areas of the north east and samll areas Yorkshire/humberside where heavy industry was, but on the whole it is not.

Consider this..
"Recently described by the Financial Times as a genuine rival to 'overheated London' the North West is one of the most vibrant and dynamic parts of the UK. "
Yes the FT, but what would they know? Apparently this must be the benefit money! Rather than the local thriving private sector economy.Did you read my post?
I am pure Lancastrian.
I said we fill our own menial jobs (mostly) without relying on imports, but the fact is that there is high unemployment in some areas. I see lots of locals fighting over street sweeper, till driver or burger flipper jobs just to have a job. There are not enough of those jobs to go round and there are very few "large" employers.
The inverse seems to be true in the South in that there are large amounts of skilled jobs being filled locally and large amounts of menial jobs being filled by imports because the locals have "proper" work.


P.S. Lets stop telling those Southern softy, shandy drinking, soft as shite poofters how good it is up here or they will move in and ruin the place.

Bagpuss
2nd August 2006, 12:56
Did you read my post?
I am pure Lancastrian.
I said we fill our own menial jobs (mostly) without relying on imports, but the fact is that there is high unemployment in some areas. I see lots of locals fighting over street sweeper, till driver or burger flipper jobs just to have a job. There are not enough of those jobs to go round and there are very few "large" employers.
The inverse seems to be true in the South in that there are large amounts of skilled jobs being filled locally and large amounts of menial jobs being filled by imports because the locals have "proper" work.


P.S. Lets stop telling those Southern softy, shandy drinking, soft as shite poofters how good it is up here or they will move in and ruin the place.


Sorry I skimmed it, I just get p1ssed off by the perception that me and mine have been taking the p1ss. I work hard posting on forums all day I'll have you know.

Now I'm off to feed my whippets some beef dripping, oh sh1t!

BobTheCrate
2nd August 2006, 13:06
In short, large scale immigration is not the answer to solving high unemployment.

Large scale immigration from significantly poorer countries is only the answer to creating and maintaining synthetically low paid jobs.

Large scale immigration does not :-

Take any account of housing problems created as a result.
Take any account of the negative social implications.
Take any account of the strains it puts on public services.

If there is a genuine skills shortage (evidence for which is extremely questionable), large scale immigration is not the only solution worthy of consideration. Where it is the only solution on the table, it is because the real motives are not just to fill a claimed skills gap.

wendigo100
2nd August 2006, 13:22
If there is a genuine skills shortage (evidence for which is extremely questionable), large scale immigration is not the only solution worthy of consideration.Agreed. What happened to education*3?