PeteBrant

Of course it is right to have some form of sensible controls on Immigration, and the situation you describe cannot be good.

But, I dont subscribe to the view that there is a massive drain on resources and services, on the country as a whole (individual councils may be different) because I don't beleive the population as a whole is growing substantially.

The UK is an aging population, we need lots of people between the age of 16-64 working to pay for all our services and pay into our private pensions. We need immigration to be able to do this - It's no good saying "well the UK people can do it" because we don't have the numbers.

Immigration is absolutely vital to the economy of the country - But, of course you are right that uncontrolled immgration in the situation you describe needs to be looked at.

Dracoro

There's, as I see it, three options.
1. more immigration (ultimately perpetuating the problem as they end up retiring and have to be paid for thus needing even more immigration to pay for it etc. i.e. vicious cycle)
2. Raise taxation/NI to pay pensions
3. Raise retirement age.

Ultimately it needs to be a balance, e.g. some immigration, some more taxation and raising retirement age a bit.

Personally I think the 1st step is to put retirement age up to 70 pronto!

PeteBrant

I think that pretty much what is happening. Obviously the retirement age has gone up to 68 for people under a certain age, and no doubt in the next 10 years or so that will go up again.

Of course that's only one part of it, the tax revenue has to be maintained (but when we all are earning our big fat pensions, we of course will pay tax on them )

Paul3446

Anyone see "The Poles are coming" on BBC2 last night?

There was a primary school with 100 children, only one child spoke English as a first language, many didn't speak English at all.

The GP surgery couldn't cope, as few of the patients spoke English, so they had to call translation phone lines to understand them.

Strangely, no-one working in the school or doctors were saying how great mass immigration was for our society!

fatherpierre

Not to mention the amount of swan bones being tossed aside after they've feasted on the local wildlife

Dracoro

Did you also see the bit about the indigenous population not doing the jobs so they HAVE to bring in immigrants. Get rid of those young ******* (keep the immigrants) and problem solved.

Leslie

I did not blame immigration for the benefit taking work dodgers. My point was-what should be done about that? I said that the immigrants, the commercial ones, are taking those jobs usually at lower wages too.

You did not mention illegal immigration which gave the impreesion that you had nothing against any kind of immigration.

The deleterious effects on education and health services as well as housing and traffic congestion etc. due to unfettered immigration cannot be denied of course.

This has always been a tolerant country although of course there are always those who have a racist streak in them. You can't however blame those who object violently against the opportunity for those who would destroy our society in order to substitute their own upon us in any way possible. It is not racist to attempt to prevent that!

Les

The Zohan

I heard that they where getting the swans to fight to the death first then eating them!

The Zohan

simply not possible, we can change the ******* into contributing useful members of society though and this should have been looked at anbd done first, some 11 years ago when NL came into power.

Until we have 100% employment then the dole scrounging ******* must be put to work. if we still have capacity then we fill the spaces with suitablty qualified immigrant/migrant workers. Security checked and vetted prior to arrival.

Easy enough, remove their benefits, remove their housing in extreeme cases.

We have the ******* is down to a multitude of reasons already discussed a million times.

for those claiming dissability - stringent checks and then graded for levels of work that they can do and in extreeme cases the stay on disability benefit. I am not saying all people claiming disability benefit are cheats but some are and they need to be stopped.

For far too long it has been easy to live off of the state and about time something was done about it., not just a few soundbites but tough solutions.

2nd or 3rd generation dole scroungers out there, never worked, no discipline, too much time on their hands.

Change this and i wonder how much of a knock-on effect it would have on crime, antoisocial behaviour and freeing up police and courts

Paul3446

Quote:
"Did you also see the bit about the indigenous population not doing the jobs so they HAVE to bring in immigrants. Get rid of those young ******* (keep the immigrants) and problem solved. "


I did indeed see that, I have no more time for those lazy t*ssers than you do.

Unfortunately, they are the young people we are now stuck with, as a result of disastrous social policies, and "getting rid of them" isn't an option. What is an option is removing all their benefits until they have to work.

Another sad result of New Labour's social disaster I'm afraid.

Can you imagine youths like that under Thatcher's government?

PeteBrant

What, when we had 3.5million people on the dole as opposed to the 794,000 we have now you mean?

The Zohan

794,000 ah yes those gov't massaged figures that we can all rely on

the way these are counted/calculated has changed, for example the 100,000's of people on dissability are not in the figures now, various ways NL have found to hide the true numbers matey and you well know it!

PeteBrant

1.61M out of work - 794,000 claiming on the dole - Of course there will be other claimants.

As for who changed the way it was counted, look no further than the Tories


Unemployment and Voter Turnout Rates [Timeweb]
But hey, Labour are no more innocent of presenting figures in the bes tlight for themselves - But don't be holding up the Tories as some paragon of Truth, because they most certainly are not.


Fact remains that unemployment under Thatchers government was the worse in British history, a rate of 9% - So to say we didn't have a benefit issue under her is a bit silly.

The Zohan

If we are going to choose a party to lead by thier last performances then no one would get in.

OK, so a pedigree/history is very important agreed.

What is more important is what they plan to do now and in the future and whether you belive they will/can do what they say they will.

PeteBrant

Precisely, it's pretty irrelevant as to what Thatchers government did - but then I didn't bring it up

Camerons Conservative party is about as far removed from Thatcherism as Browns Labour party is.

My dream ticket? Get Cameron out , bring Portillo in - Then I would vote tory.

The Zohan

Yes, and me!

Paul3446

Who started talking about Thatcher's government massaging unemployment figures?

I said can you imagine youth's like that under a Thatcher government.

Perhaps before you get your soap box out you should actually read someone else's posts. I know for someone with your self importance this is difficult, but it may help you in the future!

Bodgit

This is exactly what i was trying to say, you use your figures until someone points out something you knew already but were neglecting to highlight because it destroys your arguement.

Are you now agreeing that national statistics are massaged for the masses?

PeteBrant

Like what? Some "conspiracy theorist" sillyness that the ONS don't tell the truth because we cant handle it?

"Destroyed my argument"? When did this happen? Certainly not in this thread
I am saying that of course, any government will try to present the figures in teh best possible light - But there are of course limits as to what they can do. There are frameworks in place to stop government "lying" about the numbers of unemployed.

I dont agree that the ONS massages numbers, and you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that they do.

How the government presents those figures is a difference matter entirely

The number of people in work versus out of work is defined. The number of people claiming on the dole is defined, The number of people on disability benefit is defined, the number of students is defined, the number of people on long term sick is defined.

They aren't made up, no matter how much you think they are.

Bodge - you are looking for a fight with me at every turn, and I am simply not going to give it to you.

PeteBrant

Yes, because there were lots of them - i lived through it.

Blimey, you almost lasted an hour before you started with the personal abuse this time

Paul3446

It's an observation based on your behaviour, not personal abuse!

Out of interest would you be happy to send your child to a school where he would be the only child out of 100 who had English as a first language?

PeteBrant

Depends on the quality of the school. If it was very good, then yes. If it wasn't, then no.

But like American/British sending thier kids to swiss finishing schools - Most of the kids there won't have Engligh as thier first language - Or iIndians sending thier kids to England for enducation, mos tof the kids thier wont have Urdu as thier first language.

See, what language you speak as a first language, has no bearing on whether the school is any good.

WHich of the following would you send your child to?

(i)A school where the kids predominantly have Englisdh as a second language but the school is top of the league table

or

(ii)A school where English is the first language but sits in the middle of the league table



To me, and I might just be odd, it is the quality of the education that matters, not what the first language of the students is.

Paul3446

Yes, I think you're right, you are just odd!

The Zohan

Peter, usually huge amounts of time, monwey and resourses are then needed to help get these kids who come into a school with little/no english to the same/similar standard as the english (for want of a better description) kids.

This all has to be paid for, resourses found, additional teachers, staff, facilities, etc.

Leslie

This is by no means a true figure. The real unemployment figure is actually close to the larger one that you quoted. The unemployment figures are grossly distorted by the jobseeker's etc.

Les

Paul3446

It's between 4 and 5 million as I said yesterday!

If you believe it is 794,000, you must be deranged, or PeteBrant!

Bodgit

No, not looking for a fight, just standing my ground and my right to say your statistics may or may not be massaged (in my opinion they are).

I have my opinion you have yours. Statistics say that there are fewer unemployed than there were 10years ago. 10 years ago other categories were included in the figure to give a near truth figure (there probably were some ommissions back then too). Now categories have changed yet comparison is still being made.

Also how did they manage this huge reduction in unemployment.

You are also defending a government that has stood up on the record and admitted they have no idea about the numbers of immigrants, illegal or otherwise. They also may have missed some unemployment figures if they were on a laptop, dvd, pile of paper that mysteriously dissapears or ends up dumped at the side of the road.

Until they manage to control their data correctly they can do no better than take an educated guess.

PeteBrant

As I said yesterday, the number of people between 16-64 not working is 8 million.

The number of unemployed people that can claim unemployment benefit is 1.61 million .

The number of people actually claiming unemployment benefit is 794,000

In the figure of 8 million you have students, housewives/husbands, sick, disabled, self sufficient (dont need to work), single parents not working, thos people working cash in hand.

I have provided documentary evidence to back this up.

You and Bodgit have provided precisely **** all.

It really is quite simple.

andythejock01wrx

PeteBrant

Because the ecomony is much much stronger than it was 15 years ago.

Better economy -more jobs.

I havent defended the government at all I am simply stating reporting numbers

And they might not have - Prove me wrong.

This is the problem with supposition - You can't prove it one way or the other - Just like statements like " oh they are lying about those numbers"..




The vast majority of data is handled correctly - A couple of lost CDs does not equate to a completely unreliable system