Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

Footballers should just stick to football. Lineker, Neville, Barton I'm sure there are more. STFU

Why? Can’t see how Barton being (imo) objectionable means that other former footballers shouldn’t voice an opinion.

[swaledale]

In what way Sith? All the independant stuff I can find says legal migration's impact on the economy (using GDP Per Capita) has, I'll quote 'little positive effect', 'very small positive or negative effect' and 'no significant economic benefit'. The main argument seems to be that simple GDP increases, which isn't a valid measure of net contribution. And I'm aware that many (in fact obviously more, as they are a larger part of the population) non-immigrants are also a drain, but that's not the subject at hand.

You need to do a little bit more research then, because, although studies vary, often according to what they are trying to prove, i.e. whether migration is a plus or negative to the economy, one thing that is common across all is that the GDP increase is in a very small range, 0.5 - 2%.

Even if one ignores the wider contribution made by migrants to society, such as providing workers to keep essential services running.

One of the most egregious myths surrounding immigration is the idea that immigrants act as a drain on the public finances - when in fact the opposite is true, with migrants contributing more to the public finances than the average native-born Brit.

While British natives likely take more out of public finance by being born and educated here, most migrants move to this country once they are of working age. The Office of Budget Responsibility has projected that the average migrant, who moves to this country at the age of 25 and lives until 80, will contribute £341,000 to public finances over the course of their lives - more than the average Brit. Compared to the average UK adult, skilled worker migrant tax receipts were approximately £4,100 higher, providing a much-needed boost to the Treasury. And if immigrants are unemployed, they are less likely than UK-born citizens to claim unemployment benefits - 22% compared to 31%.

[swaledale]

Footballers should just stick to football. Lineker, Neville, Barton I'm sure there are more. STFU

I'm puzzled as to how you can equate the vile utterings of Barton, with the perfectly reasonable (even if one doesn't agree with the POV) comments made by the others you mention. Why, just because they were footballers, should they not be entitled to express a point of view? As long of course if its in a socially acceptable manner.

One of your more bizarre posts, I'm beginning to get worried about you!

[swaledale]

Why? Can’t see how Barton being (imo) objectionable means that other former footballers shouldn’t voice an opinion.

Its a rather bizarre comment, though perhaps more fool us for thinking he is being serious and not just provocative for the sake of it?

[SithHappens]

You need to do a little bit more research then, because, although studies vary, often according to what they are trying to prove, i.e. whether migration is a plus or negative to the economy, one thing that is common across all is that the GDP increase is in a very small range, 0.5 - 2%.

Even if one ignores the wider contribution made by migrants to society, such as providing workers to keep essential services running.

One of the most egregious myths surrounding immigration is the idea that immigrants act as a drain on the public finances - when in fact the opposite is true, with migrants contributing more to the public finances than the average native-born Brit.

While British natives likely take more out of public finance by being born and educated here, most migrants move to this country once they are of working age. The Office of Budget Responsibility has projected that the average migrant, who moves to this country at the age of 25 and lives until 80, will contribute £341,000 to public finances over the course of their lives - more than the average Brit. Compared to the average UK adult, skilled worker migrant tax receipts were approximately £4,100 higher, providing a much-needed boost to the Treasury. And if immigrants are unemployed, they are less likely than UK-born citizens to claim unemployment benefits - 22% compared to 31%.

There is also evidence when a migrant reaches retirement age they on average will return home. Of course not all.

The myths were spread by the likes of the mail who were quite happy to have headlines about Romanians living off the state in 6 bedroom mansions.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I have no problems with controlled legal immigration as infrastructure would likely collapse without it. Our indigenous population tend not to want to do the jobs they fill (hence the need to recruit overseas).

As Swale says they come born, educated and with their shots, at no cost to UK but that's a bit tenuous. If I buy a pet dog I expect it to be house trained and have had it's shots.

Where the immigrants come from is broadly irrelevant, it's a question of whether they have the qualifications and skills etc to fill UK Ltd needs. There is no need for UK Limited to profit from immigrant labour, for so long as they do not make a loss (eg suck more out than put in). To this end there is a drain where net income earned by immigrants is "sent home" and spent or invested there. This slows the money multiplier and has a knock on effect as the money doesn't stay in the domestic environment and so will not get repeatedly taxed such that ultimately the Treasury take falls. This probably offsets Swale's "arrive free" argument.

The argument that communities are enriched by the diversity provided by immigration is possibly compromised at present by anti Islam emotion which I can understand whilst not altogether agreeing with. Ironically many of those protesting against Islam will go down the curry house after the pub on a Friday.

However illegal migration is a whole different thing, wherever they come from or how.

[swaledale]

I have no problems with controlled legal immigration as infrastructure would likely collapse without it. Our indigenous population tend not to want to do the jobs they fill (hence the need to recruit overseas).

As Swale says they come born, educated and with their shots, at no cost to UK but that's a bit tenuous. If I buy a pet dog I expect it to be house trained and have had it's shots.

Where the immigrants come from is broadly irrelevant, it's a question of whether they have the qualifications and skills etc to fill UK Ltd needs. There is no need for UK Limited to profit from immigrant labour, for so long as they do not make a loss (eg suck more out than put in). To this end there is a drain where net income earned by immigrants is "sent home" and spent or invested there. This slows the money multiplier and has a knock on effect as the money doesn't stay in the domestic environment and so will not get repeatedly taxed such that ultimately the Treasury take falls. This probably offsets Swale's "arrive free" argument.

The argument that communities are enriched by the diversity provided by immigration is possibly compromised at present by anti Islam emotion which I can understand whilst not altogether agreeing with. Ironically many of those protesting against Islam will go down the curry house after the pub on a Friday.

However illegal migration is a whole different thing, wherever they come from or how.

On the whole don't disagree with you, I could add a comment on those extremely wealthy people who hive their cash to offshore tax havens as being equal to the remittances sent abroad by some immigrants, or you could equally see that as helping to develop or sustain the economies of those countries which is has a net positive.

But of course the free movement of capital is a by product of globalisation, freeing up of markets and liberalisation of trade, whether one thinks such deregulation, or at least the lack of controls on tax havens is a good thing depends I guess on ones point of view.

In terms of Asylum seekers or as you term it "illegal" migration, then yes its a different matter, and a complicated one.

It won't be solved by "smashing the gangs", lets face it "the war on drugs hasn't actually achieved its aim has it? Though I guess its ironic that some of those recently arrested for people smuggling, were either involved in recent anti asylum seeker protests, or were from the same white working class demographic that is often so vocal in its opposition. Still I guess when there is a few quid to be made, who cares??

Anyway back to the issue - its far too multi faceted and complex to unravel in a single post, but a system whereby asylum seekers could make their claim in France and be processed there would reduce "the boats".

A concerted effort by the richer countries to improve the conditions in the countries people are fleeing, not just foreign aid, (though its an irony when people who oppose immigrants, say foreign aid should be stopped, yes that's a good idea make the problem worse, but real targeted development assistance, plus perhaps reducing still further the exploitation of the resources in these countries so that the country gets more of the wealth etc. would help.

I realise that there will be the usual critique based on corruption, the aid is wasted etc. etc. and whilst there is an element of truth in that, there are also examples of countries, such as India and even China, that decades ago got substantial foreign aid. plus there are ways and means which the current capitalist system can apply pressure to countries in order to effect change and improvement.

There are big players both nations, companies and individuals, which could do much to improve matters, but are happy with the status quo as long as it appears to serve their own aims and requirements.

[Andy_Faber]

Those of you who watch BBC News will no doubt have seen their recent advert, which ends with Clive Myrie staring into the camera and telling you 'The fight for Truth is on'. The question now is, are the BBC fighting for it or against it? US politics, middle eastern politics, gender politics, they seem to be no more trustworthy than some twerp with a go-pro and a Youtube account.

Discuss

https://art-services.co.uk/filechute...ence-Nov25.pdf

[Geoff Parkstone]

I'm betting rA is agreeing with you

[ramAnag]

Those of you who watch BBC News will no doubt have seen their recent advert, which ends with Clive Myrie staring into the camera and telling you 'The fight for Truth is on'. The question now is, are the BBC fighting for it or against it? US politics, middle eastern politics, gender politics, they seem to be no more trustworthy than some twerp with a go-pro and a Youtube account.

Discuss

https://art-services.co.uk/filechute...ence-Nov25.pdf

I’ll reserve judgement. Something is obviously not right and some of the behaviour of BBC management seems foolish to say the least.
On the other hand, the usual suspects, all with an axe to grind and a reputation for dishonesty (Trump, Johnson and Farage etc.) appear to be falling over themselves to hammer the BBC in a concerted attack which contains more than its fair share of nonsense and hypocrisy.
For me the BBC is far from faultless and their recent behaviour warrants investigation and explanation however they still remain, for me, the best and most reliable independent news service available.
At a time when many of those involved in the more extreme area of politics have discovered the crucial importance of media support be careful what you wish for. There is more to all this than meets the eye.