Population 'could hit 70m unless we get a grip on immigration' [Archive]

ShadesWolf

07-12-2006, 21:21

And they keep coming..... :furious3:
We are on a self destruct route

Population 'could hit 70m unless we get a grip on immigration'
08:53am 12th July 2006

Britain's population could hit 70million in less than 50 years because of an 'incoherent' immigration policy, ministers were warned yesterday.

Government adviser Lord Turner painted a stark picture of the potential impact on housing, employment and traffic congestion.

He said the South East would be hardest hit by such a surge. The current population is around 60million and a 10million increase would be 4million more than previously estimated.

Lord Turner said ministers could not decide between attacking the Tories for playing the 'racist card' on immigration and launching a crackdown on illegal migrants.

He said: 'What always amazes me is we have piecemeal discussions which never consider: would you prefer a population of 60 or 70million? It is an area that

Warning: Lord Turner depresses me. The Government itself varies between attacking the Tories for trying to play racist cards and suddenly swinging round on a sixpence to be as nasty and tight as it can towards asylum seekers. There is an incoherence about the debate.'

The extraordinary intervention by Lord Turner - who examined demographic changes when he

headed the Government's Pensions Commission - is the latest from a senior figure on the failure of immigration policy.

Last month former minister Frank Field said Britain was suffering from an unprecedented influx of migrant workers and that MPs were living on borrowed time on the issue.

Lord Turner said the population would rise from 60million to 66million by the year 2050. But he predicted that if immigration went unchecked, the real figure would be 70million.

The former chairman of the Low Pay Commission said that selective skilled immigration was justified to help boost the economy and help fund pensions for the current workforce through increased tax payments.

But he warned that high levels of unskilled workers entering the country may have a short-term benefit but would ultimately damage the economy.

Lord Turner said: 'The undoubted winners from immigration are immigrants. High levels of immigration of unskilled people will be good for higher income people who will buy their

coffees and their haircuts at a slightly lower price.

'The economic disbenefits are that high levels of unskilled immigration are bad for unskilled workers and I think to deny that is nonsense - it just flies in the face of all economic theory.

'We were aware on the Low Pay Commission that if immigration continues at high levels that could limit our ability to increase the minimum wage.

'On the other hand, the best form of immigration policy for our economy is almost certainly selective skilled immigration, but that has an ethical issue about cream-skimming the skills of underdeveloped countries.'

His comments follow those of Mr Field, who said anyone who questioned mass immigration was accused of 'playing the race card', which was just 'another way of closing down debate'.

Vladimir

07-12-2006, 21:33

Maybe we should hold hands across the Atlantic. Despite the outrage over here against uncontrolled immigration I don't think much will be done to control it. People in the US are too bitter towards their opposition party to unseat those in "safe", gerrymandered districts to send a message. I'm sure such a division will stall progress in the UK as well.

Silver Rusher

07-12-2006, 21:39

The bigger the population, the better, that's how I see it.

Don't try telling me there isn't enough room in this country for 10 million more people.

ShadesWolf

07-12-2006, 21:51

The bigger the population, the better, that's how I see it.

Don't try telling me there isn't enough room in this country for 10 million more people.

I have no problem with larger populations, if the facilities are inplace to cope with it. however, I do have a problem with unskilled immigration. If unemployment was zero then yes we need them, but while the nanny state is willing to pay people benefit because they are 'sick' then we dont need more people coming into the contry to do low paid jobs, we should make these people work instead.

Silver Rusher

07-12-2006, 22:05

Good point.

caravel

07-13-2006, 00:25

I agree with shadeswolf. The country really does not have the available work for the present population. Unemployment is still a massive problem, especially in the midlands and the north. Bringing in even more people to add to the problem is not the answer.

thrashaholic

07-13-2006, 08:51

I think it's strange how the government is concerned about a myriad of population related problems: energy, housing, crime, unemployment etc. and yet continues to allow the population to increase. With a very controlled immigration policy, maintaining a steady population, or in fact allowing it to decline, these problems wouldn't be exacerbated and may even be relieved to a certain extent.

Plus if we can continue to grow economically without population growth, we all become better off.

One of the stock arguments for immigration is the aging population, but that needn't be a problem if you allow people to work indefinitely. I applaud Gordon Brown for raising the age of the state pension (although if he hadn't fiddled around with private pension schemes there wouldn't be such a problem with the sector in the first place), as life expectancy continues to rise, so should working life; although one must encourage firms to employ such people.

Fragony

07-13-2006, 10:14

BDC

07-13-2006, 10:47

It keeps amazing me that supposedly intelligent people believe that mass immigration of people from primitive parts of the world who can read nor write is the greatest thing ever. The whole of europe should close and seal of it's borders for everyone but the ones we can use, the last thing we need are more useless mouths to feed.
Except a lot of immigrants are better educated than the locals. Like the fiasco here with the Indian doctors being banned from getting jobs (essentially). Why try and get rid of them?!

But I see no issues with stopping economic migrants with nothing to offer. Different from stopping refugees though.

Fragony

07-13-2006, 10:55

Except a lot of immigrants are better educated than the locals. Like the fiasco here with the Indian doctors being banned from getting jobs (essentially). Why try and get rid of them?!

Those would qualify as usefull ~;)

Same thing here, lots of usefull immigrants, Iranian docters etc, but I guess those don't bring up the inner mother of the let me take care of you crowd.

They need to be starved and puppy-eyed.

Idaho

07-13-2006, 12:46

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-13-2006, 12:58

An 18% (roughly) population rise in 50 years with half of them immigrants doesn't bother you?

Immigration is simple.

You can't come if you can't:

1. Speak English.

2. Integrate into English culture.

3. Make a useful contribution to the economy without depriving a member of the indiginous population of his/her job.

Those three rules are fair and they will protect the locals from they drawbacks of mass immigration.

Additionally, all illegal immigrants should be automatically deported and they should not be allowed to claim asylum because if they had a case they should have done that at the border.

caravel

07-13-2006, 13:26

An 18% (roughly) population rise in 50 years with half of them immigrants doesn't bother you?

Immigration is simple.

I wish it was, but unfortunately it isn't, and it would be naive to think so. Immigrants are not the problem here. The problem is a mass influx of unskilled labour in a country that already has far too much of this.

You can't come if you can't:

1. Speak English.

What is to stop a skilled professional coming to the UK, learning english and finding work? Nothing. Most inner cities have an element of illiterate white yobs that can barely string two words together, let alone write a sentence. Should we deport these?

Most of the immigrants unable to speak english tend to be the elderly relatives of those with a resident visa. They have entered as dependant relatives. Such people are supported by their sponsor, i.e. the immigrant. They are not allowed to recourse to public funding. It is common in some cultures, especially asians, for people to support their elderly parents.

2. Integrate into English culture.

Do you plan to supply them with a plastic george cross flag for their nissans, burberry caps, thongs for their daughters, a six pack of carling and a crash course in binge drinking and unprotected sex?

3. Make a useful contribution to the economy without depriving a member of the indiginous population of his/her job.

You see I've never quite understood how someone can be deprived of a job? The way I see it is that you go for an interview and the best candidate wins? Fair enough we have too much unskilled labour as it is, and don't really need any more, but if there are jobs available that the' dole merchants' don't want to do, who's fault is that? If a professional physician entered the UK on a work visa and started working for the NHS he/she fits the "making useful contribution to the economy" thing, but is also, potentially, depriving a British doctor of his/her job. So really that statement makes no sense.

Those three rules are fair and they will protect the locals from they drawbacks of mass immigration.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Additionally, all illegal immigrants should be automatically deported and they should not be allowed to claim asylum because if they had a case they should have done that at the border.

I agree partially. Illegal immigrants see Britain as a soft touch. It is also highly debatable whether an individual is in fact a true asylum seeker fleeing opression or simply an economic migrant looking for a more priveleged life. I feel that all asylum applicants should first have to go to a British consular overseas for interview and to put their case, and gain, at least, some kind of entry clearance/permission to enter the UK, and after which be allowed passage, instead of paying people trafficers extortionate sums to smuggle them into the country to make their asylum claim. Whether this idea is good or not, it beats the current system which is ridiculously wasteful and complicated.

littlelostboy

07-13-2006, 14:23

Hey, think about this, more foreigners are migrating to your countries. Yet, one reason of massive unemployment is that companies are relocating to the LEDCs (Less Economically Developed Countries) to cut labour cost and overhead.

x-dANGEr

07-13-2006, 14:34

Britain isn't already 70m !!! Wow!

Vladimir

07-13-2006, 17:00

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-13-2006, 18:32

I wish it was, but unfortunately it isn't, and it would be naive to think so. Immigrants are not the problem here. The problem is a mass influx of unskilled labour in a country that already has far too much of this.

Well it should be simple, I agree with your statement though.

What is to stop a skilled professional coming to the UK, learning english and finding work? Nothing. Most inner cities have an element of illiterate white yobs that can barely string two words together, let alone write a sentence. Should we deport these?

We used to deport them. Seriously though, if we can't properly educate our own then we should close borders and spend a decade reverse paddling down **** creek, my major problem with "Make Poverty History" is the number of beggers on my local streets.

Most of the immigrants unable to speak english tend to be the elderly relatives of those with a resident visa. They have entered as dependant relatives. Such people are supported by their sponsor, i.e. the immigrant. They are not allowed to recourse to public funding. It is common in some cultures, especially asians, for people to support their elderly parents.

This is actually a problem in some areas, where migrants would bring in a whole load of dependants, as would their friends. Thats how you ended up with non-English areas in London. I don't believe dependants should be allowed to come unless they meet the same criteria as the migrant, the exception being wife and children.

Do you plan to supply them with a plastic george cross flag for their nissans, burberry caps, thongs for their daughters, a six pack of carling and a crash course in binge drinking and unprotected sex?

I was thinking in a more general way, queuing, pubs, not looking at other people on the tube. Again, this country should sort itself out before it lets anyone else into the madhouse.

You see I've never quite understood how someone can be deprived of a job? The way I see it is that you go for an interview and the best candidate wins? Fair enough we have too much unskilled labour as it is, and don't really need any more, but if there are jobs available that the' dole merchants' don't want to do, who's fault is that? If a professional physician entered the UK on a work visa and started working for the NHS he/she fits the "making useful contribution to the economy" thing, but is also, potentially, depriving a British doctor of his/her job. So really that statement makes no sense.

Good point, but you miss the fact a migrant will opten work for a lower wage and accept a lower standard of living than the government would provide the on the dole. Two seperate issues.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Quite happy to do that, so long as there is a dialogue.

I agree partially. Illegal immigrants see Britain as a soft touch. It is also highly debatable whether an individual is in fact a true asylum seeker fleeing opression or simply an economic migrant looking for a more priveleged life. I feel that all asylum applicants should first have to go to a British consular overseas for interview and to put their case, and gain, at least, some kind of entry clearance/permission to enter the UK, and after which be allowed passage, instead of paying people trafficers extortionate sums to smuggle them into the country to make their asylum claim. Whether this idea is good or not, it beats the current system which is ridiculously wasteful and complicated.

I can't actually see where you disagree there.

ShadesWolf

07-13-2006, 18:51

A classic org thread. Shadeswolf trembling behind his net curtain because of the scary foriegn men. Fragony still trying but failing to fill in his application for for Combat 18.

I'll come back when there is actually something substantive to debate.

If you have nothing to contribute, as usual, why bother to post.

And who is trembling behind his net curtains, im not the one that ran away from London town :laugh4:

caravel

07-13-2006, 20:00

We used to deport them. Seriously though, if we can't properly educate our own then we should close borders and spend a decade reverse paddling down **** creek, my major problem with "Make Poverty History" is the number of beggers on my local streets.

Well yes, but I don't see the connection between beggars and immigration. e.g. You very seldom see an asian beggar., but anyway I know you weren't referring to that. One of the major issues, as littlelostboy has already pointed out, is companies shifting production to the far east to take advantage of the cheap labour market. This is what Bliar and his ilk refer to when they speak of Britain becoming a "service sector state", though not with that exact wording. Basically it translates into: "We're going to let the impoverished LEDCs do all the donkey work for a pittance, while we buy/sell/use the goods for vast, fat profits." Progress eh?

This is actually a problem in some areas, where migrants would bring in a whole load of dependants, as would their friends. Thats how you ended up with non-English areas in London. I don't believe dependants should be allowed to come unless they meet the same criteria as the migrant, the exception being wife and children.

I'm not sure about the non-english areas. In my exprience those exist due lack of acceptance of immigrant communities. This "integration" problem, in my honest opinion, due to the attitudes of racism towards immigrants in the pre 90's era. You can't just wash away something like 30 years of prejudice in a few years of pathetically fake pc manouvering.

I was thinking in a more general way, queuing, pubs, not looking at other people on the tube. Again, this country should sort itself out before it lets anyone else into the madhouse.

Well queuing is not one of those major cultural traits is it? "Come to Britain: Land of the Queue!". Pubs are another thing. Not everyone wants the smokey, alcohol oriented atmosphere of a pub, this doesn't make the un-British. I'm not sure about the "not looking at other people on the tube bit". I feel if londoners were a bit friendlier they would be happier and so would those around them. You only pass through once after all.

Good point, but you miss the fact a migrant will opten work for a lower wage and accept a lower standard of living than the government would provide the on the dole. Two seperate issues.

They work for less indeed, but so do those foreign workers working for British Companies in the LEDC's above. Low pay is not an immigration problem, it's a department of work and pensions issue. They can set a real minimum wage tomorrow if they wish to, but guess what? That hurts business and we can't have that can we? Paying British workers a decent wage hurts business as well? Solution: Sack the lot and off we go to the far east! If there wasn't a hole allowing migrant workers to work in Britain for a pittance then it wouldn't happen would it? And this is not just LEDC's either. My local bus company couldn't recruit drivers for that kindof pay and hours. So what do they do? Recruit Polish drivers directly from Poland, that's what.

Quite happy to do that, so long as there is a dialogue.

I can't actually see where you disagree there.

:2thumbsup:

I understand your views and worries, that so many like to rubbish because it fits their aloof political image, as simply the status quo of most of the British public (well basd on the people from all backgrounds that I have spoken with over the years). The majority I've found very intolerant and outdated in their aproach to foreign nationals. To many "foreigners" are a lower form of life. They're not part of the culture so they're to be barely tolerated but not spoken to. I've spoken to resident Pakistanis and Jamaicans worried about more immigration. In think that many from London have no grasp of this at all, because London is a "word city" and extremely culturally diverse. Head up north thouh (or in any direction for that matter) to the smaller cities towns and you'll find the negative sentiments towards foreigners much more common.

Simply dismissing those that are concerned by this as though they are racist xenophobes is not the answer. Those that do this are often trying to live up their 'socialist' status by disagreeing with everything that is even vaguely anti immigration.

Idaho

07-13-2006, 20:04

Vladimir

07-13-2006, 21:44

I don't bother to contribute because what you have to say is all so sad and predictable. Go and have a dig through history. Go and see the 'illustrious men' who have said exactly the same things.

And while you at it, go and have a look at the creation of nation states, the movement of people, the shifts in cultures throughout the ages.

When you have more to offer than the most simplistic, innacurrate rabble rousing nonsense, then we can have a decent discussion.

I thought you were going to bring back some substance :inquisitive: . Care to sight any examples, provide any links, or are you just here to criticize?

What about the creation of nation states do you wish to explore? In order to create a nation you have to engage in genocide. I'm not saying that to be inflammatory, just look at the definition of it in the Monastery. Or maybe you're referring to civil wars caused by massive, uncontrolled migration? For movement of people, do you mean invasions? Because that's what they used to be called. I fail to see what your point is in that sentence.

Your last line is what really gets me. What do you call three, one sentence paragraphs if not simplistic? :laugh4: I see several people here having a decent discussion with you popping in to drop a few one liners.

Papewaio

07-13-2006, 23:55

Immigration is on the whole good. I have no problems with immigration that has skillset standards and gives extra weight to applications in areas where we are missing out on enough people.

However Australia has to look at slowing down immigration to some of the cities or use the immigrants in a snowy water scheme equivalent...because some of the cities water levels are so low that they are barely looking after the current population levels. Other cities are not as 'popular' are missing out on the very skillsets they need.

So extra points for a skillset that is in shortage.
Extra points to be bonded to a city for 3+ years.

However I would like the government to increase training for locals in the very areas that we have skill shortages at the same time as boosting immigration for those areas. So tech and Uni courses should be cheaper for infrastructure jobs that are suffering a skill shortage (trades, teachers, docs, nurses, engineers).

Fragony

07-14-2006, 08:02

A classic org thread. Shadeswolf trembling behind his net curtain because of the scary foriegn men. Fragony still trying but failing to fill in his application for for Combat 18.

I'll come back when there is actually something substantive to debate.

Que? Combat 18, google says

http://www.skrewdriver.net/c18bonf.jpg

That was a bit naughty of you Idaho, who stepped on the oestrogen button this time? 'I'll come back when there is actually something substantive to debate' :cheerleader:

I guess I just called you a b*tch, leave me alone.

Mount Suribachi

07-14-2006, 08:16

the best form of immigration policy for our economy is almost certainly selective skilled immigration, but that has an ethical issue about cream-skimming the skills of underdeveloped countries

This is a genuine moral issue that never gets talked about. The only other politician I've ever heard talk about it is Michael Howard, and he got shouted down as a racist.

Is it moral to take doctors from India? Is it moral to take nurses from Africa?

*waits for 3 line post from Idaho calling me a racist*

*again*

Red Peasant

07-14-2006, 11:51

Seems ironic to me, but the vast majority of the jobs that these people gravitate to in Britain are at the bottom of society's job heap; these are the very jobs usually done by those Britons at the bottom of the social scale whom many here sneer at and despise.

It's a win-win situation for those shrivelled souls who need someone to look down upon and revile. Chavs or Wogs? Take your pick. (To the mods: I use the latter term merely to make a point, it in no way reflects any prejudice on my part).

More to the point, I certainly take issue with 'criminal' elements and those gaining entry under spurious claims of asylum. Such people pose a threat to the community, but genuine asylum seekers should always be considered for protection by this country, as our great tradition demands. As for the rest, a balance has to be struck with regard to servicing the manpower needs of the British economy and the demands placed upon social cohesion and infrastructure - a delicate balancing act, and one best left to people with far more knowledge than me on the subject. However, unfortunately, due consideration of the needs of society and the economy is often trampled under the hooves of political rhetoric and ideological posturing. What we need are practical, humane and workable policies on immigration.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-14-2006, 16:27

ShadesWolf

07-14-2006, 20:28

Seems ironic to me, but the vast majority of the jobs that these people gravitate to in Britain are at the bottom of society's job heap; these are the very jobs usually done by those Britons at the bottom of the social scale whom many here sneer at and despise.

It's a win-win situation for those shrivelled souls who need someone to look down upon and revile. Chavs or Wogs? Take your pick. (To the mods: I use the latter term merely to make a point, it in no way reflects any prejudice on my part).

More to the point, I certainly take issue with 'criminal' elements and those gaining entry under spurious claims of asylum. Such people pose a threat to the community, but genuine asylum seekers should always be considered for protection by this country, as our great tradition demands. As for the rest, a balance has to be struck with regard to servicing the manpower needs of the British economy and the demands placed upon social cohesion and infrastructure - a delicate balancing act, and one left to people with far more knowledge than me on the subject. However, unfortunately, due consideration of the needs of society and the economy is often trampled under the hooves of political rhetoric and ideological posturing. What we need are practical, humane and workable policies on immigration.

Im amazed, I actually agree with part of what Red Peasant has said.
We have hope for you yet mate....

Strike For The South

07-15-2006, 04:24

Banquo's Ghost

07-15-2006, 10:03

What is a wog? You peplole stick Us in the middle and Es at the ends of all sorts of words and now you are making them up. America spoke english first learn from us you wogs. As for this it is a problem in Europe becuase of lack of space or I have been lead to believe. Immagration should be cut down. Yes and it is morally right to take the best and the brightest from underdevolped country thats the best way to keep them from taking a peice of our pie

SFTS a liberal? :laugh4:

The W word is a deeply offensive term usually applied to black people or other foreign 'undesirables'. As such, it should be removed immediately by the moderators in the same way the american N word would be.

Banquo's Ghost

07-15-2006, 10:10

Thats the problem with immigration here at the moment, it forces down the wages of the bottom rung jobs to a point where its actually better to be on the dole. That is what causes many of the benefit problems.

Actually, Wigferth, that's nonsense. The UK has a minimum wage, supported by a tax credit system and scalable benefits to encourage the low-paid into work. A livable wage cannot be undercut legally. It's one of the successes of the Blair government.

Criminal employers certainly exploit immigrants below that minimum wage, but are you arguing that British people should have the right to be exploited illegally too? Equal opps? :inquisitive:

Tribesman

07-15-2006, 15:03

Help me out here Shades , is that piece from the Mail or the Express ?
It cannot be the Sun and the time rules out the Standard .
Thanks in advance for your reply
yours faithfully
concerned of Milton Keynes .:laugh4:

whyidie

07-15-2006, 15:34

Actually, Wigferth, that's nonsense. The UK has a minimum wage, supported by a tax credit system and scalable benefits to encourage the low-paid into work. A livable wage cannot be undercut legally. It's one of the successes of the Blair government.

Criminal employers certainly exploit immigrants below that minimum wage, but are you arguing that British people should have the right to be exploited illegally too? Equal opps? :inquisitive:

Thats an interesting concept. Hows the tax credit system work for minimum wage ?

Banquo's Ghost

07-15-2006, 16:38

Thats an interesting concept. Hows the tax credit system work for minimum wage ?

Working Tax Credits (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Bfsl1/BenefitsAndFinancialSupport/BenefitsAndFinancialSupportArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10018922&chk=CUIJ0b)

National Minimum Wage (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/nmw/nmw_abou.htm)

:book2:

stalin

07-15-2006, 16:39

You all seem to forget who created the curent situation in those ( most Ex-british/french colonies) so called backward countries. It was OK to exploit them but not OK to help them ( most of these people send money to families back home). Those crappy jobs they do no-one in their right mind will do instead opting for the dole.

ShadesWolf

07-15-2006, 16:58

Tribesman

07-15-2006, 17:12

It was in the Mail last week
Ah , I thought it had that certain blue rinse-cum-twinset and pearls aroma .:juggle2:

King Ragnar

07-15-2006, 18:19

Yeh just stop all immigrants coming in and kick all the ilegal ones out now and all the asylum seekers too and we should be good to go.

whyidie

07-15-2006, 18:32

Working Tax Credits (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Bfsl1/BenefitsAndFinancialSupport/BenefitsAndFinancialSupportArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10018922&chk=CUIJ0b)

National Minimum Wage (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/nmw/nmw_abou.htm)

:book2:

We have a national minimum wage here as well. The tax credit though...wow! I don't know how that was pulled off.

Is there an equivalent to wellfare for the impoverished ? If so was there a decline in wellfare beneficiaries as a result of the tax credit ? In other words, how hs it been working ?

Red Peasant

07-15-2006, 18:54

Yeh just stop all immigrants coming in and kick all the ilegal ones out now and all the asylum seekers too and we should be good to go.

Yeah, and kick out all people with forum names like 'King Ragnar', they really get on my wick, because they nick all our jobs and women, and they smell. Out with Ragnars! :laugh4:

Banquo's Ghost

07-15-2006, 18:55

Is there an equivalent to wellfare for the impoverished ? If so was there a decline in wellfare beneficiaries as a result of the tax credit ? In other words, how hs it been working ?

I'm not sure what you mean by welfare for the impoverished - there are many benefits for the unemployed or long-term sick.

The UK branch of the company I used to run had UK contracts to train and re-employ people on benefits under the New Deal program (based on the original Wisconsin Model for Welfare-to-Work). It was remarkable how many of the long-term unemployed (here I'm talking about people who had been on benefits for 2-20 plus years) were able to get jobs and re-establish their lives through government funded training, then supported by tax credits and phased benefits when in work.

In my experience, it has been a reasonable success. Unfortunately, the government messed it up through their payment system, which was so badly designed and run that it over-paid thousands of people. Many low-paid and entirely honest workers then got demands for hundreds, sometimes thousands of pounds to be repaid. They had no way of knowing that they had been over-paid, because the system is not transparent, but still got faced with enormous bills.

Many suffered from a collapse of self-confidence (for years they knew what they were doing on benefits, but suddenly they got a job and were faced with bailiffs and huge bills - back they went to the comfort-zone of the benefit system) and many more simply refused to have anything to do with the tax credit system.

On top of that, the government ran scared of the actual success of the New Deal and massaged the unemployment figures by transferring welfare claimants from Jobseeker's Allowance (recipients of which have to seek work and undergo mandatory training or lose their welfare payments) to Incapacity Benefit (recipients of which simply need a doctor's note and they are on benefits for life with no requirement to seek work). The latter claimants don't show up on the statistics as unemployed.

King Ragnar

07-15-2006, 18:56

Out with people who lik eimmigrants for sure.

Banquo's Ghost

07-15-2006, 19:03

Out with people who lik eimmigrants for sure.

Ah, so all the immigrants and everyone who likes them?

How do you define liking immigrants, pray? Saying hello in the street? Hugging? Shopping in the local Spar shop?

Oh, and since you didn't answer clearly last time around, how many generations does it take for someone to lose their immigrant status?

:inquisitive:

King Ragnar

07-15-2006, 19:04

Ah, so all the immigrants and
Oh, and since you didn't answer clearly last time around, how many generations does it take for someone to lose their immigrant status?
:inquisitive:

Crikey, when they stop being muslims and around about the 1000000th generation.

Red Peasant

07-15-2006, 19:06

Out with people who lik eimmigrants for sure.

I mean look at you! You only got here in March 2005, taking up the forum space of indigenous .Orgahs such as my superior self. I can proudly trace my ancestry all the way back to October 2000, and before if the old forum is counted. You Johnny-come-Latelies are swamping the place, slowing down the .Org and spamming the place to hell. Why don't you go back to where you came from, some third world forum no doubt. You could at least learn to spell and address the senior members as 'Sir'!

:laugh4: :laugh4:

:elephant:

whyidie

07-15-2006, 19:12

I'm not sure what you mean by welfare for the impoverished - there are many benefits for the unemployed or long-term sick.

The UK branch of the company I used to run had UK contracts to train and re-employ people on benefits under the New Deal program (based on the original Wisconsin Model for Welfare-to-Work). It was remarkable how many of the long-term unemployed (here I'm talking about people who had been on benefits for 2-20 plus years) were able to get jobs and re-establish their lives through government funded training, then supported by tax credits and phased benefits when in work.

In my experience, it has been a reasonable success. Unfortunately, the government messed it up through their payment system, which was so badly designed and run that it over-paid thousands of people. Many low-paid and entirely honest workers then got demands for hundreds, sometimes thousands of pounds to be repaid. They had no way of knowing that they had been over-paid, because the system is not transparent, but still got faced with enormous bills.

Many suffered from a collapse of self-confidence (for years they knew what they were doing on benefits, but suddenly they got a job and were faced with bailiffs and huge bills - back they went to the comfort-zone of the benefit system) and many more simply refused to have anything to do with the tax credit system.

On top of that, the government ran scared of the actual success of the New Deal and massaged the unemployment figures by transferring welfare claimants from Jobseeker's Allowance (recipients of which have to seek work and undergo mandatory training or lose their welfare payments) to Incapacity Benefit (recipients of which simply need a doctor's note and they are on benefits for life with no requirement to seek work). The latter claimants don't show up on the statistics as unemployed.

Yikes. So it sounds like good idea, poor execution. Hate to see something like that happen when it likely took a lot of effort to get the program in place. Were the taxes for the credits coming from a particular tax (gas tax, luxury tax, corporate tax) or was it just from the general tax fund ?

Moving people to the Incapacity Benefit seems incredibly counterproductive. Was this something that was proved fairly concretely or is it still a suspicion at this point ?

Banquo's Ghost

07-15-2006, 19:19

Yikes. So it sounds like good idea, poor execution. Hate to see something like that happen when it likely took a lot of effort to get the program in place. Were the taxes for the credits coming from a particular tax (gas tax, luxury tax, corporate tax) or was it just from the general tax fund ?

Moving people to the Incapacity Benefit seems incredibly counterproductive. Was this something that was proved fairly concretely or is it still a suspicion at this point ?

'Good idea, poor execution' is destined for Tony Blair's gravestone.

The money comes from the general tax fund. Very little tax in the UK is hypothecated.

The move to IB has been denied by the government (naturally) but is observable in detailed figures over time and anecdotally from Jobcentre staff. (The Jobcentre is the front agency for moving people onto and away from most welfare). We were always getting reports that advisors had been targetted to move people off JSA to IB.

It has been counter-productive. There is now a drive to reform IB and increase job seeking for the able. Remarkably, the unemployment figures are now rising again as people are taken off IB and back to JSA.

But unemployment is not a political hot potato now as it was in 1997. :rolleyes:

Banquo's Ghost

07-15-2006, 19:24

Crikey, when they stop being muslims and around about the 1000000th generation.

Hmm. So if someone renounced his faith as a muslim, but continued professing violence as a political act, he would be OK?

How many generations has your family been in the UK? Can you prove it unto the 1,000,000th instance? Can you guarantee that none of those ancestors was a closet muslim?

King Ragnar

07-15-2006, 19:27

ahahahaha a closet muslim good one. Good god no.

Banquo's Ghost

07-15-2006, 19:37

ahahahaha a closet muslim good one. Good god no.

You'll need more than that cursory dismissal to convince Her Majesty's Race and Religion Police. Let's have some proof.

Remember, the farther back in your ancestry you go, the more connections you have. There's something like 16 million Europeans who have genetic connections to Ghengis Khan. What are the chances none of your ancestors slept with a muslim?

Or maybe even liked one? :laugh4:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-15-2006, 20:04

Banquo, you made a good point about the minimum wage but it assumes a British person is willing to live off just that and nothing else.

They're not, we all want computers and broadband, for starters, and cars.

Yes, that would be a fault of our decedant society.

King Ragnar, I'm tempted to tell you where to get off but consider this:

1,600 years ago your ancestors were nasty immigrants, you can probably ony prove residancy to the 4,000 generation, and then only if you could go all the way back.

caravel

07-15-2006, 21:22

Europe as a whole should probably just boot everyone out to be on the safe side. Otherwise we just can't be certain can we? Then they can start again readmitting the population based on their ancestry. Every former citizen will have to turn up with 2000 years of checkable history. If it can be proven that they are all of British origin they will be granted citizenship and alowed to return, if e.g. someone has anglo-saxon linage, then unfortunately they won't be allowed to return as these are in fact Germans and should make their applications there.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-15-2006, 22:44

I have a better idea, we can wind back the clock to 400 AD and everyone can re-emigrate. Yeah, I want to claim Suth-Seaxe myself!

Lets be honest, even the Celts were immigrants, they're really Germans too! They're just better at hiding it. Only the Highlanders have a right to be here!

JAG

07-16-2006, 02:03

Ah, I know, we need genocide!!!!!!!

That will teach those Arabian / Eastern European / FOREIGN bastards nicking our jobs no one else wants to do!

Seriously people, get a grip. Have a look at net migration figures, the difference between those who leave the country and those which enter only actually entered the more people entering stage 10 or so years ago. It goes in cycles and it always has, just like immigration has always happened.

I thought you guys were too old to be scared by old fairy tales by now.

Mount Suribachi

07-16-2006, 10:42

Those crappy jobs they do no-one in their right mind will do instead opting for the dole.

This "we need immigrants to do the jobs we don't want to" argument really gets on my wick.

I live in a medium-large town that is 99% white.

Who cleans our toilets? White people!

Who sweeps our streets? White people!

Who works at the sewage plant? White people!

I work at a factory with over 1000 employees, about 10 of them non-white and every single one of them is in a professional or skilled role. All the really nasty jobs (and we have a few) are done by.....non-immigrant white people!

Incredible how we function really.

Papewaio

07-17-2006, 01:11

Humans Sped to U.K. After Ice Age, Study Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_britainrepopulation2.html)

Humans hotfooted it to Britain after the last ice age, scientists say. The new research, which challenges previous studies, suggests these early settlers advanced rapidly as the glaciers melted away.

A team of European scientists estimated the speed and timing of human resettlement in late glacial Britain by comparing radiocarbon dated remains with ice-core climate records. Their findings, now published in the Journal of Quaternary Science, suggest a wave of migration coincided with a sudden rise in temperature and the northwards spread of herd animals such as wild horse and deer.

Previously, scientists thought repopulation had been a drawn-out affair, preceded by centuries of sporadic forays from mainland Europe.

"The big question has always been how quickly, and in what number, did people return once the glaciers had retreated," said research team leader Nick Barton, from the anthropology department of Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, England. "Now with the benefit of larger numbers of radiocarbon dates corrected against a highly accurate record of global climatic change from the Greenland ice record, it seems reoccupation was an almost instantaneous event across northern and central Europe."

Early modern humans reached Britain by around 30,000 years ago, but within 3,000 years they were driven out by the advance of the last ice age.

The archaeologists looked for evidence of their return in ancient caves in western and northern England. The team radiocarbon dated bits of butchered bone from animals the settlers hunted such as red deer, and wild horse and cattle. The data reveal repopulation began as far back as 16,000 years ago

Assuming that every generation was a mere 16 years apart that gives an upper limit of a thousand generations since everyone in the UK was an immigrant.

Well done King Ragnar you have just called for yourself to be expelled from your own country.

Oh and BTW if the average generation is taken as 25, a million generations would take us out before humans had evolved to humans. So it would be impossible for anyone anywhere not to be an immigrant. ~:cheers: