Is British Labour about to die?

[Deleted]

I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone that recently a report came out saying that immigrants were adding £5 billion to the economy then UCL turned around and said you can't count, it's actually £20 billion.

www.migrationwatchuk.com/faq

Surely immigrants benefit our economy?

Some do of course, but their economic performance is very mixed. The previous Government claimed that immigrants add £6 billion to our economy. What they did not say is that they also add to our population in almost exactly the same proportion as they add to production. Thus the benefit to the native population is very small - an outcome confirmed by major studies in the US, Canada and Holland and in the UK by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. This finding was recently echoed by the OECD. (See here)

The conclusion of the House of Lords study was unambiguous:

“We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population”. (Abstract) Despite the claims of the immigration lobby there is no economic argument in favour of current levels of net migration.

Do migrants pay more in tax than they receive in benefits?

The House of Lords report found that “determining whether immigrants make a positive or negative fiscal contribution is highly dependent on what costs and benefits are included in the calculations… But even using the [Labour] Government’s preferred method, the fiscal impact is small compared to GDP and cannot be used to justify large-scale immigration”. (Para. 132) A recent study by academics at University College London found that while EU migrants as a whole contribute slightly more than they consume in public services, non-EU migrants do not, consuming £104 billion more in public services than they paid in taxed over the period 1995-2011. Indeed, it found that all those who have migrated since 1995 have cost the tax payer £95 billion, or about £15 million a day. We have examined this paper and have found that in fact the EU migrants’ contribution is likely to be zero since academics at UCL underestimated the level of benefits received by recent migrants. (See here)

Surely London would collapse without immigrants?

This debate is not about existing immigrant communities. Nobody is remotely suggesting that they should leave. The issue is how many more people our island can sustain.

Do we need immigration to fill vacancies?

No - there are always about half a million vacancies as people move jobs (known as “frictional” unemployment).There are about two million people in the UK registered as unemployed and there is, therefore, no shortage of labour.

Surely we need the skills that foreigners can bring?

Yes, there are skills gaps which foreigners could fill but they should do so only temporarily while British workers are trained up. The Migration Advisory Committee regularly reviews labour shortages and publishes an official list of skills gaps in the labour market. The government is moving in the right direction; a worker now has to have a salary of at least £35,000 a year to apply for permanent settlement ensuring that migrant labour is not treated as a permanent solution to skills shortages. The Confederation of British Industry themselves admit that immigration is not a long term solution to skills shortages.

Don't we need foreigners to do to the jobs that British people are unwilling to do?

No. The underlying issue is pay rates for the unskilled. (Briefing Paper 1.22). At present, the difference between unskilled pay and benefits is so narrow that, for some, it is hardly worth working. The notion that British people are unwilling to do certain jobs is not true but, for many, there is no incentive to work - in part because wages at the bottom of the scale have been held back by high levels of immigration.

Again, the House of Lords report was unambiguous:

“We do not doubt the great value of this (immigrant) workforce from overseas to UK businesses and public services. Nevertheless, the argument that sustained net immigration is needed to fill vacancies, and that immigrants do the jobs that locals cannot or will not do, is fundamentally flawed. It ignores the potential alternatives to immigration for responding to labour shortages, including the price adjustments of a competitive labour market and the associated increase in local labour supply that can be expected to occur in the absence of immigration”. (Para. 122)

Who will pick strawberries?

There is a need for seasonal unskilled labour, especially in agriculture and horticulture. However there are well over 300 million people of working age in the European Union from which the industry can recruit, although there is no reason why unemployed British workers should not and cannot also take this work.

Surely there is no harm in migrants who work and pay taxes?

There is a developing view, supported by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, that the effect of immigration on the budget is broadly neutral in the long term. As mentioned above, they reported that:

“Determining whether immigrants make a positive or negative fiscal contribution is highly dependent on what costs and benefits are included in the calculations. Government claims that the exchequer consistently benefits from immigration rely on the children of one UK-born parent and one immigrant parent being attributed to the UK-born population—a questionable approach. But even using the Government's preferred method, the fiscal impact is small compared to GDP and cannot be used to justify large-scale immigration”. (Para. 132)

In any case, large numbers add substantially to the pressure on housing and public services which take a long time to adjust. They also add, of course, to pressures on our environment.

- - - Updated - - -

You know I really couldn't care less about this. A) British people are free to move and work anywhere in the EU and B) Where you are born or where your parents are born should in no way determine where you live and work.

If foreign born people are better at the job than a local born then they get the job simple as.

This is true.

The reason is it true is because the Government figured out some time ago that it was cheaper to use foreign labour that other countries' Governments have paid to train, than for the UK Government to train one of its native own.

Quite simply put, British people face a barrier to entry in employment in their own country that foreigners do not.

[Pua]

Just to be clear, I’ve now stopped responding directly to Mmomaths who (for some reason) is trying to turn this into an immigration debate.

It would be an excellent point if people didn't constantly understate just how fantastically wealthy first world nations actually are.

That’s true, but money remains a finite resource that shouldn’t be spent needlessly; particularly tax payer’s money. If we properly reformed public services to modernize them, the savings could be dramatic and would allow the country to shift some of its economic production out of the finance sector.

I will preface this by saying I DO NOT agree with everything UKIP sprouts.

What I DO think is, it would be DECENT if they get into power. as they will shake things up. good OR bad. giving others a chance to actually fix things.. what I mean is.

If UKIP gets in.. and closes the immigration from say.. 100 to.. 10. then after theyve done that, labor can come back in, and open it to a more reasonable figure. so end result still being good.

I think the entire UKIP popularity is not based whatsoever on UKIP itself, but more people being so massively dissolutioned with the other parties offerings.

I get your point, and could even catch myself nodding, but I tend to agree with MerinPally when he or she says:

There are better ways to shake up the country than to completely fuck it up for a few years then vote someone sane and/or competent back into power in order to undo the damage.

The problem is that UKIP don’t promote a political ideology of any kind, other than single-issue complaints that they blame the EU for.

You know I really couldn't care less about this. A) British people are free to move and work anywhere in the EU and B) Where you are born or where your parents are born should in no way determine where you live and work.

If foreign born people are better at the job than a local born then they get the job simple as.

There’s a snag with this approach, inasmuch as it leads to a lot of people reaching some very strange conclusions. You’ll likely have heard the maxim “British workers are too lazy to do shit jobs, so migrants do them” or something similar. It’s not that British workers are too lazy (clearly some are, of course, but that’s hardly exclusive to the British), it’s that wages are simply too low for a British worker to do them without living in poverty.

There’s a conundrum here.

The benefits trap is basically one that discourages work because it doesn’t pay. We want to pull people away from their dependence on the state, but there aren’t the jobs that make that possible because the only ones available to unskilled workers pay the minimum hourly wage, but often don’t cover the amount of hours you’d need to make ends meet. The only real solution to this is to mandate wage rises across the board (adoption of the living wage is something I support), but we know that corporations are likely to lay people off if the government did this rather than take a hit on top line profits.

This is the real legacy of Thatcher and the free market. Economic asphyxiation. You’d have to reform the entire way corporations do business in the country, and accept that many of them would choose to leave. I think that’d be great, but there’d need to be a way to pick up the jobs that’d be lost which is unpalatable to most governments.

Personally, I still think it’s the way to go.

[nevermore]

it’s that wages are simply too low for a British worker to do them without living in poverty.

So earning X amount of £££ a year means that the British worker would be living in poverty, but the foreign guy who earns the same X amount would... not be living in poverty?
This never made sense to me. For me personally poverty means that you can't afford to eat regularly or keep a roof above your head. Not being able to buy a second car or the 'essential quinoa' from Waitrose does not count as poverty.

[Deleted]

So earning X amount of £££ a year means that the British worker would be living in poverty, but the foreign guy who earns the same X amount would... not be living in poverty?
This never made sense to me. For me personally poverty means that you can't afford to eat regularly or keep a roof above your head. Not being able to buy a second car or the 'essential quinoa' from Waitrose does not count as poverty.

The are numerous reasons for this.

1) immigrants can slip through the system, meaning it is far easier for them to work cash in hand. The building industry in Britain has seen huge amounts of this happening in the last 15 years.

2) Immigrants don't have the same amount of tuition fees to pay back, meaning they can survive easier on minimum wage compared to someone who has accumulated British training fee debt.

You raise an excellent point about how poverty is measured.

Measuring poverty in a unified way across all countries is essential to accurately illustrate the human development index.

Labour mismanagement has contributed to both points 1 and 2 I've made.

[Pua]

So earning X amount of £££ a year means that the British worker would be living in poverty, but the foreign guy who earns the same X amount would... not be living in poverty?
This never made sense to me. For me personally poverty means that you can't afford to eat regularly or keep a roof above your head. Not being able to buy a second car or the 'essential quinoa' from Waitrose does not count as poverty.

If living under the same conditions, obviously, it'd be poverty. If not living under the same conditions, however, then it might not be (it'd depend on context). For example, it's common for property owners to house many more people in a single dwelling than is legal and this is most common among European migrants - this type of illegality is, of course, the fault of the property owner and not the people who are coming where there is work. When legal, what tends to happen is that European migrants come in groups that can pool their resources in order to afford the basics like food and rent.

Unfortunately, people who like to believe that immigration is the sole cause of the nations ills, tend to also say things like this:

Measuring poverty in a unified way across all countries is essential to accurately illustrate the human development index.

Which is, quite obviously, utterly absurd. It's absurd to the point where it's practically impossible to take it seriously.

Discussing immigration is also entirely off topic. Trying to drag a discussion about the state of the Labour party, into a tirade against European immigrants, is therefore trolling.

Like all forms of trolling, particularly when accompanied by inanity, it's simply best ignored.

[Deleted]

Labour will die off because of the greater amount of choice for social parties . Conservatives don't have much in the way of competition except for UKIP

[Calaba]

Discussing immigration is also entirely off topic. Trying to drag a discussion about the state of the Labour party, into a tirade against European immigrants, is therefore trolling.

Like all forms of trolling, particularly when accompanied by inanity, it's simply best ignored.

Can't tell if you're trolling there or not lol!
If you don't think Labour are alienating huge parts of their voter base by their stance on EU immigration then.... just.... wow.

[Deleted]

If living under the same conditions, obviously, it'd be poverty. If not living under the same conditions, however, then it might not be (it'd depend on context). For example, it's common for property owners to house many more people in a single dwelling than is legal and this is most common among European migrants - this type of illegality is, of course, the fault of the property owner and not the people who are coming where there is work. When legal, what tends to happen is that European migrants come in groups that can pool their resources in order to afford the basics like food and rent.

Unfortunately, people who like to believe that immigration is the sole cause of the nations ills, tend to also say things like this:



Which is, quite obviously, utterly absurd. It's absurd to the point where it's practically impossible to take it seriously.

Discussing immigration is also entirely off topic. Trying to drag a discussion about the state of the Labour party, into a tirade against European immigrants, is therefore trolling.

Like all forms of trolling, particularly when accompanied by inanity, it's simply best ignored.

hdr.undp.org/en/content/multidimensional-poverty-index-mpi

You should stop using the tabloids and union circulars for your political sources and start using some credible ones.

Poverty needs to be measured both on a national level and an international level in order to measure both levels of relativity.

That's so obvious even without any knowledge of the subject.

I think you are resorting to calling me a troll simply because I'm backing up everything i say with credible sources.

In your mind, you can't agree with me because it goes against all your moral principles of right and wrong like i was saying before. You are simply stuck in the "f*cking tories" mentality and your mind will never be your own unless you can overcome that.

You also can't disagree with me, because i am linking credible sources of research.


Therefore..... "troll", is your last and only resort. I should report you for that since you are breaking forum rules by name calling.

[Killmaim Deathbringer]

My vote goes to whichever party promises to leave the internet uncensored and free, and to keep the pound strong against other currencies (although that's not really something governments can promise)

[Pua]

If you don't think Labour are alienating huge parts of their voter base by their stance on EU immigration then.... just.... wow.

I think they'd need a stance on it before they could alienate anybody. As in, a properly articulated stance that doesn't change from week to week and entirely depends on who they're speaking to. In fact, I think every political party should have a proper stance on immigration because, from what I can tell, nobody really has; and that includes the odious Farage and his cronies.

He says "control the numbers" without ever articulating how you'd do it, why, under what circumstances and how public services should be reformed in order to work in the new environment. He also hasn't bothered to consider what applying his mantra would mean for British migrants, if other countries decided to apply his measures to Brits.

He literally believes that stopping Europeans coming here would solve every other problem. As Paddy Ashdown said, he's added to the gaiety of political debate in the country, but talks absolute rubbish. The bigger snag is that he's calling a tune that the major parties are all too happy to dance to because none of them have the ability to deal in active politics. Cameron and Osborne are the most cynical and harmful duo to lead the country since Thatcher, possibly ever, and Ed Miliband is utterly beyond election - they've nothing to add to the immigration debate nor really any other.

You should stop using the tabloids and union circulars for your political sources and start using some credible ones.

You've said this umpteen times. You should be bored of it by now, but seem to think the 10th time you say it will give it validity.

To date, in our conversation, I've brought several points to the discussion - now, because of that and the realisation that your worldview is either misled or downright daft, you're starting to desperately link sources that you've neither read nor understood before this conversation.

And we both know that you're doing it. I'd even go so far as saying that you still haven't read or understood them.

You've gone down the route of the "scattergun linker", something that anyone with even a modicum of social ability can spot a mile away.

The problem, of course, is that you keep say things like this:

In your mind, you can't agree with me because it goes against all your moral principles of right and wrong like i was saying before. You are simply stuck in the "f*cking tories" mentality and your mind will never be your own unless you can overcome that.

A silly diatribe, already disproven a page or so ago, and it's blatantly obvious that you had nothing to bring to the conversation shortly after you got involved in it in the first place. The reason you can't agree with me is because you're simply stuck in the "he just hates the tories" mentality, and your mind will never be your own unless you can overcome that.

Whoops, I just smashed your entire silly criticism by merely repeating it. I look forward to the next barely-related link that you got from Google.

Therefore..... "troll", is your last and only resort. I should report you for that since you are breaking forum rules by name calling.

Feel free.

[larrakeyah]

My vote goes to whichever party promises to leave the internet uncensored and free, and to keep the pound strong against other currencies (although that's not really something governments can promise)

They can promise and they can keep it. There's no will to do it though.

[Tyderi]

I don't feel so bad looking at American politics now.

[nevermore]

So, foreign students studying in the UK will no longer be allowed to stay an extra 4 months after graduating.

Thank you, Theresa May, for solving all of the nation's problems!

/sarcasm off

This is so dumb it just broke my brain. They really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for a few ukip votes.

[MerinPally]

So, foreign students studying in the UK will no longer be allowed to stay an extra 4 months after graduating.

Thank you, Theresa May, for solving all of the nation's problems!

/sarcasm off

This is so dumb it just broke my brain. They really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for a few ukip votes.

Which is infuriating because I have a hard time believing that the swing towards UKIP is going to be half as big as some people are peddling. It's not going to be a drop in the ocean, maybe a drop in a large puddle at best. Really not anything to be worried about but something to be aware is happening. And by things like this they don't necessarily put UKIP up a notch but rather push themselves (Tories) out.

[Pua]

This is so dumb it just broke my brain. They really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for a few ukip votes.

Mmm. It's literally "come up with a policy so extreme, even UKIP themselves probably wouldn't do it".

Which is infuriating because I have a hard time believing that the swing towards UKIP is going to be half as big as some people are peddling. It's not going to be a drop in the ocean, maybe a drop in a large puddle at best. Really not anything to be worried about but something to be aware is happening. And by things like this they don't necessarily put UKIP up a notch but rather push themselves (Tories) out.

As has been mentioned a few times already, as soon as other parties go on the offensive against UKIP their vote will fall apart. The only real effect they'll have is to spoil Conservative votes, but that is unlikely to win them a lot of actual seats.

[Kallisto]

Which is infuriating because I have a hard time believing that the swing towards UKIP is going to be half as big as some people are peddling. It's not going to be a drop in the ocean, maybe a drop in a large puddle at best. Really not anything to be worried about but something to be aware is happening. And by things like this they don't necessarily put UKIP up a notch but rather push themselves (Tories) out.

UKIP will likely get votes, a lot of them. BUT they will be too spread out to get the number of MPs they really want. At this point I can actually see them getting more votes nation wide than the Lib Dems but less MPs than them.

What UKIP are doing is mostly taking the Tory vote, if this keeps up then it will be good for Labour. The SNP taking the Labour/Lib Dem vote in Scotland can hurt Labour but not as bad as some people think. Since the SNP will do deals with Labour but never with Conservative. The Lib Dems are bleeding votes. But that is all going to Labour as well. The thing about the Lib Dems is that in areas where it is them vs conservatives, they are still holding on.

[Orby]

Labour deserves to die for the mess they left the country in, as much as I distrust the Conservatives and I detest Cameron I feel that the Conservatives are the only ones that can fix this mess.

that's how I see it too, that and the lack of actual parties to vote for, Its really just voting for the lesser evil now.