Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

UK Politics & Current Affairs Discussion Thread

2,263 replies to this topic
Uncle Sikee Atric
  • Uncle Sikee Atric

    Everyone's favorite Uncle, but not Led-By.

  • Paleto Bay Mayor's Office
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2014
  • United-Kingdom
  • Helpfulness Award

#31

Posted 06 January 2015 - 03:35 PM Edited by Sikee Atric, 06 January 2015 - 03:41 PM.

call me a moron but I'm voting UKIP or Tories

only just turning 18 as well, I'll be allowed to vote it's what I've been looking forward to :D

I think the most important thing is for the country to be out of the Union coz it's doing nobody a favour

 

What is the alternative?

 

People who think the UK should leave the EU live in the past, a Victorian past when the UK had an empire to fall back on....  These days globalisation and world politics are normal, hoping our country can stand on it's own is comparing us to such wonderful countries like, ooh, North Korea?  Even China has had to admit the inevitable and has been gradually opening it's borders to the outside world since the 1980's.  Now they are fairly open and accessable, only North Korea seems to be the last, totally closed country, but even that is starting to fail. 

 

Isolationism is a very bad thing in the modern age and isolation from the EU will leave us with only one other friend.  That is the US and I don't think most people want the UK to become the 51st State by default, because that is what will happen if we try to go it alone.  We'll be reduced from a powerful member of the G7, to a star on a flag, a flag that was raised against the British in rebellion in the first place!

 

Rant over....

 

EDIT : I feel like I am gonna end up on Quotable Notables for this one....  :beerhat:

  • Irviding, Captain VXR and henriquedematos like this

.2D
  • .2D

    Does Anybody Remember Laughter?

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2009
  • Commonwealth

#32

Posted 06 January 2015 - 03:54 PM

"Going it alone" and not being a part of that poxy union are completely different. Why is the Commonwealth such a horrible alternative?

  • Cheddarhead7 and Shmiqq like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#33

Posted 06 January 2015 - 04:07 PM

Because half of the Commonwealth detest the notion of further integration with their historic hegemonic ruler. Sorry, not half. Pretty much all.
  • Irviding, Zook, BrownBear and 1 other like this

Uncle Sikee Atric
  • Uncle Sikee Atric

    Everyone's favorite Uncle, but not Led-By.

  • Paleto Bay Mayor's Office
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2014
  • United-Kingdom
  • Helpfulness Award

#34

Posted 06 January 2015 - 04:27 PM

Look, I am not saying the EU isn't great. In reality it needs reform, reorganisation and a new direction to make it right, but the EU is a hell of a lot better of an option than the alternatives....
  • Revenge of the Donut likes this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#35

Posted 06 January 2015 - 04:36 PM

"Going it alone" and not being a part of that poxy union are completely different. Why is the Commonwealth such a horrible alternative?


Yeah you guys can just go take over India again and you'll be back in business, f*ck the EU.

Shmiqq
  • Shmiqq

    you know how it is man

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#36

Posted 06 January 2015 - 05:03 PM

 

call me a moron but I'm voting UKIP or Tories

only just turning 18 as well, I'll be allowed to vote it's what I've been looking forward to :D

I think the most important thing is for the country to be out of the Union coz it's doing nobody a favour

 

What is the alternative?

 

People who think the UK should leave the EU live in the past, a Victorian past when the UK had an empire to fall back on....  These days globalisation and world politics are normal, hoping our country can stand on it's own is comparing us to such wonderful countries like, ooh, North Korea?  Even China has had to admit the inevitable and has been gradually opening it's borders to the outside world since the 1980's.  Now they are fairly open and accessable, only North Korea seems to be the last, totally closed country, but even that is starting to fail. 

 

Isolationism is a very bad thing in the modern age and isolation from the EU will leave us with only one other friend.  That is the US and I don't think most people want the UK to become the 51st State by default, because that is what will happen if we try to go it alone.  We'll be reduced from a powerful member of the G7, to a star on a flag, a flag that was raised against the British in rebellion in the first place!

 

Rant over....

 

EDIT : I feel like I am gonna end up on Quotable Notables for this one....  :beerhat:

 

excuse me

 

I hate to offend anyone here but what do countries like Poland Romania and Bulgaria do for the UK? cheap workers, that's about it

 

the UK pays out a billion or two to stay in something it barely gets use out of, Norway isn't in the EU and look how good it is, it still maintains trade with Europe

 

I think the immigration laws are unfair too, people from Asia and elsewhere have to go through a lot to come here but Eastern Europeans don't, it just means more benefit reaping

 

not saying I'm prejudiced against any sort of people btw pls don't accuse

 

while UKIP's members may be racist the party and its policies really aren't, imagine how much £ is saved without having to pay that £1.7b to countries, half of which don't even help us

 

leechers


"Going it alone" and not being a part of that poxy union are completely different. Why is the Commonwealth such a horrible alternative?

commonwealth as in India, BD, Canada Australia etc? less risky with them than countries in Eastern Europe, India is on the rise as well they're like key to keep good relations with

 

or I'd imagine so


might I also point out a fault in the EU?

 

http://en.wikipedia....ase&redirect=no

 

yeah, Parliament in UK means nothing with the EU Parliament around to squash whatever laws we have


 

call me a moron but I'm voting UKIP or Tories

only just turning 18 as well, I'll be allowed to vote it's what I've been looking forward to :D

I think the most important thing is for the country to be out of the Union coz it's doing nobody a favour

No ones going to call you an idiot. If you explained why you hold the views that you do I'm sure some of us would offer constructive advice to help you improve your opinion ;)

 

idk I was scared to talk about UKIP in my class last year coz everyone was making fun of it

 

it's rly not racist, things like BNP are racist but UKIP's primary goal is to leave the EU and what's the first thing that should pop to mind when thinking of UKIP? saving £


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#37

Posted 06 January 2015 - 05:08 PM

I hate to offend anyone here but what do countries like Poland Romania and Bulgaria do for the UK? cheap workers, that's about it

There's nothing wrong with free labour movement; tell me, what harm do they do? It's been proven time and time again that Eastern European migrants in the UK don't displace domestic jobs or lead to squeezes on wages, and in terms of cost-to-benefit, EU migrants are better than domestic citizens.
 

the UK pays out a billion or two to stay in something it barely gets use out of

Except every study on the subject has demonstrated that, once rebates are taken into account, measurable EU membership benefits significantly outweigh costs. The CBI did a fairly extensive study on this.

imagine how much £ is saved without having to pay that £1.7b to countries, half of which don't even help us

Powerful nations, by and large, don't embarke in political decisions that aren't clearly beneficial. Just because you're incapable of grasping the benefit in a policy does not mean that one does not exist.

Also, the notion that EU legislation supplants domestic legislation isn't entirely accurate. Quite aside from the fact that most EU nations have numerous explicit exclusions, in many areas we can just ignore EU rulings as long as we state we intend to do so.
  • Revenge of the Donut likes this

Shmiqq
  • Shmiqq

    you know how it is man

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#38

Posted 06 January 2015 - 05:12 PM Edited by Shmiqq, 06 January 2015 - 05:13 PM.

 

I hate to offend anyone here but what do countries like Poland Romania and Bulgaria do for the UK? cheap workers, that's about it

There's nothing wrong with free labour movement; tell me, what harm do they do? It's been proven time and time again that Eastern European migrants in the UK don't displace domestic jobs or lead to squeezes on wages, and in terms of cost-to-benefit, EU migrants are better than domestic citizens.
 

the UK pays out a billion or two to stay in something it barely gets use out of

Except every study on the subject has demonstrated that, once rebates are taken into account, measurable EU membership benefits significantly outweigh costs. The CBI did a fairly extensive study on this.

imagine how much £ is saved without having to pay that £1.7b to countries, half of which don't even help us

Powerful nations, by and large, don't embarke in political decisions that aren't clearly beneficial. Just because you're incapable of grasping the benefit in a policy does not mean that one does not exist.

 

I'm not saying they do any bad but why should it be so easy for them to come here and for example Indian immigrants to be deported so fast?

 

show me some evidence to the second point

 

and how do you explain EU law pissing all over UK law? that's a good thing, parliamentary sovereignty meaning f*ck-all is good?

 

sticking by my points, don't think I'll be convinced otherwise

 

also out of curiosity where are you lot from?


Zook
  • Zook

    Banter

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2008
  • United-Kingdom

#39

Posted 06 January 2015 - 05:13 PM Edited by Zook, 06 January 2015 - 07:10 PM.

 

 

call me a moron but I'm voting UKIP or Tories

only just turning 18 as well, I'll be allowed to vote it's what I've been looking forward to :D

I think the most important thing is for the country to be out of the Union coz it's doing nobody a favour

 

What is the alternative?

 

People who think the UK should leave the EU live in the past, a Victorian past when the UK had an empire to fall back on....  These days globalisation and world politics are normal, hoping our country can stand on it's own is comparing us to such wonderful countries like, ooh, North Korea?  Even China has had to admit the inevitable and has been gradually opening it's borders to the outside world since the 1980's.  Now they are fairly open and accessable, only North Korea seems to be the last, totally closed country, but even that is starting to fail. 

 

Isolationism is a very bad thing in the modern age and isolation from the EU will leave us with only one other friend.  That is the US and I don't think most people want the UK to become the 51st State by default, because that is what will happen if we try to go it alone.  We'll be reduced from a powerful member of the G7, to a star on a flag, a flag that was raised against the British in rebellion in the first place!

 

Rant over....

 

EDIT : I feel like I am gonna end up on Quotable Notables for this one....  :beerhat:

 

excuse me

 

I hate to offend anyone here but what do countries like Poland Romania and Bulgaria do for the UK? cheap workers, that's about it

 

the UK pays out a billion or two to stay in something it barely gets use out of, Norway isn't in the EU and look how good it is, it still maintains trade with Europe

 

I think the immigration laws are unfair too, people from Asia and elsewhere have to go through a lot to come here but Eastern Europeans don't, it just means more benefit reaping

 

not saying I'm prejudiced against any sort of people btw pls don't accuse

 

while UKIP's members may be racist the party and its policies really aren't, imagine how much £ is saved without having to pay that £1.7b to countries, half of which don't even help us

 

leechers


"Going it alone" and not being a part of that poxy union are completely different. Why is the Commonwealth such a horrible alternative?

commonwealth as in India, BD, Canada Australia etc? less risky with them than countries in Eastern Europe, India is on the rise as well they're like key to keep good relations with

 

or I'd imagine so


might I also point out a fault in the EU?

 

http://en.wikipedia....ase&redirect=no

 

yeah, Parliament in UK means nothing with the EU Parliament around to squash whatever laws we have


 

call me a moron but I'm voting UKIP or Tories

only just turning 18 as well, I'll be allowed to vote it's what I've been looking forward to :D

I think the most important thing is for the country to be out of the Union coz it's doing nobody a favour

No ones going to call you an idiot. If you explained why you hold the views that you do I'm sure some of us would offer constructive advice to help you improve your opinion ;)

 

idk I was scared to talk about UKIP in my class last year coz everyone was making fun of it

 

it's rly not racist, things like BNP are racist but UKIP's primary goal is to leave the EU and what's the first thing that should pop to mind when thinking of UKIP? saving £

 

Yeah they will probably ridicule you there hopefully people here will listen to your justifications and reasoning before doing that. 

 

I'm quite busy so I will have to be very brief. The amount we pay out is clearly visible, the amount we gain from it is harder to see but can still be show in the academic studies. There's also other benefits such as our standing in the world which almost entirely depends on our membership of the EU.

 

So basically read all "Evidence" and you will come to the conclusion the EU is good. And 500 million immigrants could come into our country is not evidence (My friend uses it all the time) that is a baseless insinuation, are they and what affect are they having is what you want to be looking at.

 

Edit:Beaten to it :p


Stephan90
  • Stephan90

    proud "conspiracy theorist"

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2008
  • Germany

#40

Posted 06 January 2015 - 05:36 PM Edited by Stephan90, 06 January 2015 - 05:40 PM.

You can say what you want but Farage's speeches in the European parliament are so damn entertaining.

 

Please excuse my little off-topic, I didn't want to create a new thread.

 

The only thing that could leave the United Kingdom unsatisfied after the election is that people couldn't decide between Conservatives and UKIP and get Labour instead although people wanted something in between the first two.


GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#41

Posted 06 January 2015 - 05:36 PM

Migrants DO displace British workers. It's obvious. Because when you have an already saturated job market, and you then add hundreds of thousands more people into the mix then you're just exaggerating the problem and making it worse. Sure there's the occasional entrepreneur who comes in and creates jobs, but overall they're job takers not job creators. 

  • Cheddarhead7 and Shmiqq like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#42

Posted 06 January 2015 - 05:38 PM

I'm not saying they do any bad but why should it be so easy for them to come here and for example Indian immigrants to be deported so fast?
 
show me some evidence to the second point
 
and how do you explain EU law pissing all over UK law? that's a good thing, parliamentary sovereignty meaning f*ck-all is good?
 
sticking by my points, don't think I'll be convinced otherwise
 
also out of curiosity where are you lot from?


1) Because the EU specifically permits free movement of labour. No such legal agreement exists with India though, it must be said, as a Commonwealth member immigration is much easier than most other countries so possibly a bad example on your part.

2) http://www.cbi.org.u...ain-and-the-eu/
http://m.ft.com/cms/...144feabdc0.html
http://www.parliamen...ers/sn06730.pdf

3) Already covered above.

I'm a British citizen, not that it should make any difference.

Migrants DO displace British workers. It's obvious.

It appears "obvious" to people with relatively limited understandings of the mechanics of job markets; who make false assumptions about the way they work, but they really really don't. If it's so "obvious" you must be able to find an academic study demonstrating it, no?

Because when you have an already saturated job market

Which we don't. Why do you think we do? There are hundreds of thousands of vacant roles in the UK job market. And that's despite employment being about the highest it ever has been.
  • Melchior likes this

Uncle Sikee Atric
  • Uncle Sikee Atric

    Everyone's favorite Uncle, but not Led-By.

  • Paleto Bay Mayor's Office
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2014
  • United-Kingdom
  • Helpfulness Award

#43

Posted 06 January 2015 - 06:02 PM Edited by Sikee Atric, 06 January 2015 - 06:03 PM.

And so it begins....

Cheer up people, we got 5 months of arguments like this to look forwards to. We should be discussing what the parties want us to discuss and that is the economy and the health service, but no.... We are straight onto Europe and immigration. The British always worry about foreign accents on the bus, and that is a quote from a Barnsley voter from the last Euro Elections.

As an aside, I love the UKIP stance in the European Assemblies. They claim their wages and expenses, pay their staff and join the political coalition with the extremist Polish faction. Yet when the EU Anthem sounds, they turn their backs, like it means something to them....

You also have to remember the limitation UKIP puts on new members. They are the only UK party to not allow former BNP members to join, since about half of their membership is already ex-BNP.

Chat always goes back to one of three things, politics, sex or bodily functions.

Captain VXR
  • Captain VXR

    Now Captain Lion.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2009

#44

Posted 06 January 2015 - 07:04 PM

 

I'm not saying they do any bad but why should it be so easy for them to come here and for example Indian immigrants to be deported so fast?
 
show me some evidence to the second point
 
and how do you explain EU law pissing all over UK law? that's a good thing, parliamentary sovereignty meaning f*ck-all is good?
 
sticking by my points, don't think I'll be convinced otherwise
 
also out of curiosity where are you lot from?


1) Because the EU specifically permits free movement of labour. No such legal agreement exists with India though, it must be said, as a Commonwealth member immigration is much easier than most other countries so possibly a bad example on your part.

2) http://www.cbi.org.u...ain-and-the-eu/
http://m.ft.com/cms/...144feabdc0.html
http://www.parliamen...ers/sn06730.pdf

3) Already covered above.

I'm a British citizen, not that it should make any difference.

Migrants DO displace British workers. It's obvious.

It appears "obvious" to people with relatively limited understandings of the mechanics of job markets; who make false assumptions about the way they work, but they really really don't. If it's so "obvious" you must be able to find an academic study demonstrating it, no?

Because when you have an already saturated job market

Which we don't. Why do you think we do? There are hundreds of thousands of vacant roles in the UK job market. And that's despite employment being about the highest it ever has been.

 

Am I right in thinking that the reason we have high immigration and high unemployment/underemployment is because of skills shortages in specific sectors such as engineering, poor wages and conditions for many agricultural/manual labour jobs and poor education for some areas like IT and computing?

 

Not to mention that immigration boosts the economy and job growth as immigrants need to feed themselves, buy clothing and so on.


GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#45

Posted 06 January 2015 - 07:04 PM

 

I'm not saying they do any bad but why should it be so easy for them to come here and for example Indian immigrants to be deported so fast?
 
show me some evidence to the second point
 
and how do you explain EU law pissing all over UK law? that's a good thing, parliamentary sovereignty meaning f*ck-all is good?
 
sticking by my points, don't think I'll be convinced otherwise
 
also out of curiosity where are you lot from?


1) Because the EU specifically permits free movement of labour. No such legal agreement exists with India though, it must be said, as a Commonwealth member immigration is much easier than most other countries so possibly a bad example on your part.

2) http://www.cbi.org.u...ain-and-the-eu/
http://m.ft.com/cms/...144feabdc0.html
http://www.parliamen...ers/sn06730.pdf

3) Already covered above.

I'm a British citizen, not that it should make any difference.

Migrants DO displace British workers. It's obvious.

It appears "obvious" to people with relatively limited understandings of the mechanics of job markets; who make false assumptions about the way they work, but they really really don't. If it's so "obvious" you must be able to find an academic study demonstrating it, no?

Because when you have an already saturated job market

Which we don't. Why do you think we do? There are hundreds of thousands of vacant roles in the UK job market. And that's despite employment being about the highest it ever has been.

 

 

There are numerous studies which show immigration negatively affecting British workers and causing more unemployment for British nationals. I'm on my sh*tty PS4 web browser right now, and I can't do links, I also can't view the links you posted. I know Migration Watch UK and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research have published reports confirming that this is true. There are also reports which suggest the opposite, but they tend to selectively choose and measure their data. Common example being that they count immigrants that have been living here for 5 years as British, which has the double falsity of boosting the British jobs figures and reducing the figures of immigrants with jobs. Which is just 1 way they completely misrepresent the facts.

 

How does it work then according to you then? I'm sorry but if you have a limited number of jobs, with more people than jobs, I fail to see how if you THEN add even more people to the job market that that somehow that helps. It's simple supply and demand. You're just increasing the demand for jobs, but not meeting that demand with an increased supply. 

 

I don't get how having lots of vacant roles means there isn't a big shortage of jobs and a saturated jobs market. There's always going to be lots of jobs available at any given time, because vacancies don't get filled immediately and because new jobs are inevitably going to be created even during the worst of economic downturns. The number of unemployed is still very high though and there is still too many applicants for every job available. There aren't enough jobs going round, and there's just too many people competing to get the ones that are available. The population is at the highest it's ever been, so you'd expect employment to be near the highest it's ever been. The figures don't represent the truth though, because the government uses millions and millions being on very low hours or even 0 hours contracts to contribute to employment figures. It's another case misrepresenting the reality. 

 

Immigration on the scale we have it harms British people' job prospects.


Shmiqq
  • Shmiqq

    you know how it is man

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#46

Posted 06 January 2015 - 08:20 PM

 

 

I'm not saying they do any bad but why should it be so easy for them to come here and for example Indian immigrants to be deported so fast?
 
show me some evidence to the second point
 
and how do you explain EU law pissing all over UK law? that's a good thing, parliamentary sovereignty meaning f*ck-all is good?
 
sticking by my points, don't think I'll be convinced otherwise
 
also out of curiosity where are you lot from?


1) Because the EU specifically permits free movement of labour. No such legal agreement exists with India though, it must be said, as a Commonwealth member immigration is much easier than most other countries so possibly a bad example on your part.

2) http://www.cbi.org.u...ain-and-the-eu/
http://m.ft.com/cms/...144feabdc0.html
http://www.parliamen...ers/sn06730.pdf

3) Already covered above.

I'm a British citizen, not that it should make any difference.

Migrants DO displace British workers. It's obvious.

It appears "obvious" to people with relatively limited understandings of the mechanics of job markets; who make false assumptions about the way they work, but they really really don't. If it's so "obvious" you must be able to find an academic study demonstrating it, no?

Because when you have an already saturated job market

Which we don't. Why do you think we do? There are hundreds of thousands of vacant roles in the UK job market. And that's despite employment being about the highest it ever has been.

 

 

There are numerous studies which show immigration negatively affecting British workers and causing more unemployment for British nationals. I'm on my sh*tty PS4 web browser right now, and I can't do links, I also can't view the links you posted. I know Migration Watch UK and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research have published reports confirming that this is true. There are also reports which suggest the opposite, but they tend to selectively choose and measure their data. Common example being that they count immigrants that have been living here for 5 years as British, which has the double falsity of boosting the British jobs figures and reducing the figures of immigrants with jobs. Which is just 1 way they completely misrepresent the facts.

 

How does it work then according to you then? I'm sorry but if you have a limited number of jobs, with more people than jobs, I fail to see how if you THEN add even more people to the job market that that somehow that helps. It's simple supply and demand. You're just increasing the demand for jobs, but not meeting that demand with an increased supply. 

 

I don't get how having lots of vacant roles means there isn't a big shortage of jobs and a saturated jobs market. There's always going to be lots of jobs available at any given time, because vacancies don't get filled immediately and because new jobs are inevitably going to be created even during the worst of economic downturns. The number of unemployed is still very high though and there is still too many applicants for every job available. There aren't enough jobs going round, and there's just too many people competing to get the ones that are available. The population is at the highest it's ever been, so you'd expect employment to be near the highest it's ever been. The figures don't represent the truth though, because the government uses millions and millions being on very low hours or even 0 hours contracts to contribute to employment figures. It's another case misrepresenting the reality. 

 

Immigration on the scale we have it harms British people' job prospects.

 

well imho I don't mind immigrants working, they do the jobs nobody wants to and they have the ability to do it, that explains all the Eastern European builders

 

but the idea of having to pay for membership to something you get nothing from is ridiculous, it's like me paying £10 to stay in a group of 100 people where 80 insult me and 20 are nice to me


Shmiqq
  • Shmiqq

    you know how it is man

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#47

Posted 06 January 2015 - 08:26 PM

lol who wants to bet? I am sure as sh*t UK is leaving the EU in or before 2017, saying that I'm gonna vote Conservatives

 

UKIP are more straightforward in their main objective but I think I read that one of their policies said they wanted to privatise the NHS

 

and I'm thinking hell no


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#48

Posted 06 January 2015 - 08:43 PM

Am I right in thinking that the reason we have high immigration and high unemployment/underemployment is because of skills shortages in specific sectors such as engineering, poor wages and conditions for many agricultural/manual labour jobs and poor education for some areas like IT and computing?



That's the long and the short of it, yes. Worth giving specific mention to the lack of flexibility in the education and training infrastructure which means we're always about three years behind the current employment trends but hey, that's what happens when you aspire to send everyone 18-21 away to study at university for three years rather than encouraging internships and on-the-job training.


There are numerous studies which show immigration negatively affecting British workers and causing more unemployment for British nationals. I'm on my sh*tty PS4 web browser right now, and I can't do links
Then I await these links with bated breath.


I know Migration Watch UK and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research have published reports confirming that this is true.
Migration watch, as in the anti-immigration think tank? On the basis of their stated aims as an organisation I doubt their impartiality on the subject.

If the paper published by NIESR you're referencing is "The long term economic impacts of reducing migration" (http://niesr.ac.uk/b...on#.VKw7_nNFDqA) then it says nothing to corroborate your argument. Please allow me to quote from it selectively:


As an experiment, we chose the migration target set by the senior partner of the current UK coalition government (the Conservative Party) to reduce the level of net migration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. Our estimates show that the long term impact of this policy will be to significantly reduce GDP per capita and worsen the public finances. While gross wages increase slightly, the resulting increase in taxes means after-tax wages also fall.


Our results show that a significant reduction in net migration has strong negative effects on the economy. First, by 2060 in the low migration scenario aggregate GDP decreases by 11% and GDP per person by 2.7% compared to the baseline scenario (see Figure 1). Second, this policy has a significant negative impact on public finances, owing to the shift in the demographic structure after the shock. The total level of government spending expressed as a share of GDP increases by 1.4 percentage points by 2060. This effect requires an increase in the effective labour income tax rate for the government to balance its budget in every period. By 2060 the required increase is 2.2 percentage points. Third, the effect of the higher labour income tax rate is felt at the household level, with average households' net income declining because of the higher income tax despite the initial increase in gross wages due to lower labour supply. By 2060 net wage is 3.3% lower in the low migration scenario.


There are also reports which suggest the opposite, but they tend to selectively choose and measure their data. Common example being that they count immigrants that have been living here for 5 years as British, which has the double falsity of boosting the British jobs figures and reducing the figures of immigrants with jobs. Which is just 1 way they completely misrepresent the facts.
On what basis do you make these allegations? I have seen nothing of the sort in any of the papers I've ever read on the subject.
 


How does it work then according to you then? I'm sorry but if you have a limited number of jobs, with more people than jobs, I fail to see how if you THEN add even more people to the job market that that somehow that helps. It's simple supply and demand. You're just increasing the demand for jobs, but not meeting that demand with an increased supply.
There are several fundamental mistakes in the logic you employ here:

1) Employment doesn't function on the basis of simple supply and demand. An individual being employed in a role does not, generally speaking, "remove" a job from the job market. Indeed, employment tends to create more jobs than it occupies; increasing economic growth results in increased employment, which results in higher production which, as long as there's sufficient demand, will create additional employment in the supply chain and in some cases in an aftercare environment. Immigration in and of itself creates jobs. Therefore the notion that there is even a finite number of jobs in an economy is flawed.

2) There aren't "more people than jobs" in the UK. In fact, there are numerous sectors which are dramatically undersupplied with jobs. The fact immigration is increasing and yet levels of unemployment are declining is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of a saturated job market.


I don't get how having lots of vacant roles means there isn't a big shortage of jobs and a saturated jobs market.There's always going to be lots of jobs available at any given time, because vacancies don't get filled immediately and because new jobs are inevitably going to be created even during the worst of economic downturns.
If this were the case you'd expect to see relatively steady unemployment rates from quarter to quarter, but that's simply not reflected in reality:

uku1.png

The long-term trends are pretty telling here.


The number of unemployed is still very high though and there is still too many applicants for every job available.
The percentage of unemployed in the UK is 6% currently. That's lower than almost anywhere in Europe. And it's continuing to drop. It's not going to be long until were matching the ~5% unemployment of the lowest-of-the-low, pre-recession period. And, as I've already said, there aren't "too many applicants" for every job. Yes, there are some sectors of the economy which are highly oversubscribed. But similarly, other sectors are hugely under-subscribed, including massive growth sectors like the one I work in. We have to bring in foreign talent because there just aren't enough domestic citizens with the requisite skills and experience. So yeah, not "every job" by any stretch of the imagination.


The population is at the highest it's ever been, so you'd expect employment to be near the highest it's ever been.
Why, given that employment is a percentage of the total population?


The figures don't represent the truth though, because the government uses millions and millions being on very low hours or even 0 hours contracts to contribute to employment figures.
Zero hour contract holders only represent about 1.5% of total roles. And foreign nationals are proportionally more likely to be on casual or zero-hour working contracts than domestic citizens.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#49

Posted 06 January 2015 - 08:56 PM


 Common example being that they count immigrants that have been living here for 5 years as British, which has the double falsity of boosting the British jobs figures and reducing the figures of immigrants with jobs. Which is just 1 way they completely misrepresent the facts.

What's the problem with that, though? I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the British immigration system, but after 5 years of living and working in the country, likely establishing equity in the community, aren't you for all intents and purposes British? Or are they just living on constantly renewed working permits? 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#50

Posted 06 January 2015 - 08:59 PM

The presumption would be that citizens working in the UK for more than 5 years would have indefinite leave to remain in the country and not be dependent on visas, even if they weren't yet naturalised citizens. Which isn't true in every case but is in the overwhelming majority of them.

Not that I'm entirely convinced it's even true.

El Tigre chino
  • El Tigre chino

    im alive somewhat

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2014
  • Serbia

#51

Posted 08 January 2015 - 02:03 AM

reading all of these in british accents


BRITLAND
  • BRITLAND

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012

#52

Posted 08 January 2015 - 04:33 PM Edited by BRITLAND, 08 January 2015 - 04:38 PM.


That's f*cked up that y'all yankies have Congress decide your President in the end, I thought America was meant to be democracy capital of the world.

 
No we don't.... Congress only decides the Presidency if there is a tie in the electoral college, it happened that way in 1800 and in 1824 elections. The electoral college is a lot different than that. Basically each state's popular vote turns into votes from the states electoral college. So if Ohio votes 51% democratic, the electors will all vote for the Democratic candidate, etc. That's what battleground states are. It's pretty interesting if you want to read up on it. The idea that it's undemocratic is pretty wrong though, it is quite democratic. The issue is that it really leaves a good amount of AMerican voters ignored by the candidates if they aren't in battleground states. Nobody campaigns in New York or Texas, for example because NY is solid democrat and Texas is solid republican. 
 
dith784
I thought the members of that college were members of Congress, as they have votes equivalent to the total members of congress us three guys/gals in D.C?

EDIT: In 2000 the majority of Americans voted for Al Gore over Bush, but Bush won the college vote, how is that democratic?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#53

Posted 08 January 2015 - 05:38 PM

In the UK it's possible for a party to win a majority of the vote and still lose on seats. It's happened before. It's the case with all FPTP implementations with electoral regions.

Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu
  • Contribution Award [Sports]

#54

Posted 08 January 2015 - 11:12 PM Edited by Max, 08 January 2015 - 11:15 PM.

People are stupid, though.

It's pretty hard to dispute the figures. The UK is the fastest growing economy in the G7 and has the fastest stable growth in the EU. Wages are growing faster than inflation and employment higher than pre-crisis levels. I'm not convinced that the Conservative-led policies have been the best possible for returning economic prosperity but there's little dispute that they have done so. That's going to be the biggest issue for the other parties to try and address; Labour's continued insistence that the Conservatives can't be trusted with the economy looks pretty hollow now we're outgrowing most of our competitors.

How will I vote? I don't know. UKIP are filled with populist bluster and blanket statements about immigration that have no bearing in reality so on the basis of fundamental dishonesty they can be kicked to the kerb pretty quickly.

Labour seem stuck in a rut and Ed Milliband has all the charisma of a rotting whale carcass; it was on the back of a union movement that's far too politicised he came to power in the first place which is a huge put-off for me. The last thing I'm going want to to listen to is the political views of some hypocritical dinosaurs who decry wealth whilst bringing home six-figure paychecks earned on the backs of blackmailing working people into political support by denying them assistance in arbitration with their employers unless they tow the line. Plus he seems pretty dedicated to screwing Middle England and their policies towards investment in high-tech growth sectors are laughable, and I'm not likely to vote for a party that have no interest in investing in the sector I work in, so that's basically out too.

The small and nationalist parties are generally silly and a complete waste of a vote.

The Lib Dems are probably about right on social policies but wrong just about everywhere else. That said they've been really good locally; I live in a Lib Dem safe seat and they've been much better than the other parties at addressing local concerns.

I voted Conservative last election but I'm concerned about growing Euroscepticism and some really f*cking questionable social policies, plus I'm really not convinced that their plans to further roll back the state are sound. And if we leave the EU, I'm leaving this damn country. So yeah, basically there's no party currently with a policy direction that actually suits my views enough to commit to voting for them.

This to the last letter, aside from living in a Lib Dem area (Elmbridge is about as Conservative as they come.)

I feel that while the economy has been handled reasonably well under the current government social policy is a complete f*cking state. Lack of investment in housing has f*cked my generation, NHS cuts leave the service extremely vulnerable, the safety net has been pulled from under all societies most vulnerable and yet politicians s peddle the tired line of Britain being a 'soft touch'. Not to mention the rising tide of Eurosceptism aimed at wooing 'outraged from Sevenoaks' Daily Mail c*nts who would would otherwise vote UKIP. I've made it clear in other threads exactly what I think of leaving the Euro.

On the other hand Labour are crippled by a compete and utter lack of direction or forward thinking policy.

In the local and EU elections last year I voted Lib Dem for a European seat and I spoiled my balot for the local council as I was voting in Sheffield, where I wouldn't be living much longer so it felt wrong to vote for a council I wouldn't have to live with.

Come May 5th I hope I have a lot more clarity from both parties on key issues. As it stands it's all talk and no trousers.
  • Abel., Tyler and sivispacem like this

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#55

Posted 09 January 2015 - 12:07 AM

So, Mr Cameron feels a TV debate won't be neutral territory unless the Green party are involved to neutralise the threat of UKIP taking away Tory votes by having the Greens take away Labour's influence. I think the PM should be more concerned about the SNP's soar in popularity being a potentially damaging wound on Red Ed & Co.

Or perhaps he just fears the prospect of duelling with Farage.
  • A J likes this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#56

Posted 09 January 2015 - 01:28 AM Edited by stu, 09 January 2015 - 01:29 AM.

It's a total cop out on his part. Like he gives a sh*t about the Greens being in the debate. He knows the Greens won't be in, because they've only got 1 f*cking seat in the commons and they don't poll particularly well in elections. If you have to have the Greens you'd arguably have to include all the other parties with the same number of MP's or higher, including SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP, and George f*cking Galloway with his Respect Party. It'd be a farce. 

 

If he does actually back out, I think it will only damage him. The TV debates will still go on, and a lot of people are going to watch them. So the other leaders get to win some favour from the public and get a massive platform, whilst Call Me Dave misses out. On top of that people will think he's chickening out, which he is. So it's like a double loss. I wouldn't be surprised to see a u-turn from him and he ends up being in the debates.

  • John Smith likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#57

Posted 09 January 2015 - 08:00 AM

Thing is, though, you've got to set an arbitrary barrier for entry into the debate somewhere. And there are as many compelling arguments to have the Greens/SNP/Plaid involved as there are having UKIP involved. The BNP, SNP and Plaid all gained a higher proportion of the popular vote per constituency competed for than UKIP. Thee Greens won a seat at general election. UKIP were fourth in popular vote but why set arbitrary boundaries at four?

I'm of the view that either no leadership debate should take place, or one should take place involving all parties competing in more than 50% of constituencies. But yeah, I agree it doesn't reflect well on Cameron at all.

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#58

Posted 09 January 2015 - 08:27 AM

It's amazing how tired people are of the Tories, considering Labour - despite Ed Milliband - is leading (albeit with 1 percentage point) in the polls.  Imagine if Labour had a charismatic leader.  It's sort of like the Republicans nominating Mitt Romney in 2012.

 

Still, the EU's biggest problem is selling itself.  The EU has done more good than bad for Europe (and each of its member states), and since the EU is such a strong force, you want to be at that table to get decisions made.  But I doubt David Cameron is going to talk loud about the things that the UK gets from the EU, because that would weaken his appeasement of the Eurosceptic UKIP voters, where he must appear tough on EU.

 

Leaving the EU will in practical terms mean the UK will be heavily influenced by it, but have no word in the decision process.  Just look at Norway or Switzerland.  Norway is the country that implements EU directives faster than any other country, and they have no say in them.  Why?  Because it benefits Norway to be part of a common market.  Just like it benefits the UK.


Zook
  • Zook

    Banter

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2008
  • United-Kingdom

#59

Posted 09 January 2015 - 12:50 PM

It's amazing how tired people are of the Tories, considering Labour - despite Ed Milliband - is leading (albeit with 1 percentage point) in the polls.  Imagine if Labour had a charismatic leader.  It's sort of like the Republicans nominating Mitt Romney in 2012.

 

Still, the EU's biggest problem is selling itself.  The EU has done more good than bad for Europe (and each of its member states), and since the EU is such a strong force, you want to be at that table to get decisions made.  But I doubt David Cameron is going to talk loud about the things that the UK gets from the EU, because that would weaken his appeasement of the Eurosceptic UKIP voters, where he must appear tough on EU.

 

Leaving the EU will in practical terms mean the UK will be heavily influenced by it, but have no word in the decision process.  Just look at Norway or Switzerland.  Norway is the country that implements EU directives faster than any other country, and they have no say in them.  Why?  Because it benefits Norway to be part of a common market.  Just like it benefits the UK.

Agreed. I think it's harder in peoples mind to understand the benefits of the EU due to their intangible nature. Us losing influence in the developing South East Asian economies and the wider world is hardly as convincing in a layman's mind as we are losing 50 million a day. For this reason and the fact people won't even bother learning the opposing arguments is why I'm very worried about the referendum. I'm generally opposed to most referendums on principle, but this one can really f*ck us up :/ 


GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#60

Posted 09 January 2015 - 05:22 PM

Thing is, though, you've got to set an arbitrary barrier for entry into the debate somewhere. And there are as many compelling arguments to have the Greens/SNP/Plaid involved as there are having UKIP involved. The BNP, SNP and Plaid all gained a higher proportion of the popular vote per constituency competed for than UKIP. Thee Greens won a seat at general election. UKIP were fourth in popular vote but why set arbitrary boundaries at four?

I'm of the view that either no leadership debate should take place, or one should take place involving all parties competing in more than 50% of constituencies. But yeah, I agree it doesn't reflect well on Cameron at all.

 

I think it's OFCOM that decide which parties are in the TV debates and which aren't. I'm not entirely sure of the metric they use, but it includes more than just performance at the last general election. They also take into account recent polling, which would mean you could have UKIP but not the other minors. Performance in other elections is also taken into account, and considering UKIP were the first party in over 100 years to win a UK wide election other than Labour or Tories, I'd say they deserve to be in. Even if it was only for the European parliament. They've also won the last 2 by-elections. 

 

So according to OFCOM's metric and just general rational reasoning, there's a big argument for saying UKIP deserve to be in the TV debates, whereas the others like SNP and the Greens don't deserve to be in. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users