UK needs +7 Million immigrants to keep debt down

Sampong

I just reread one of your posts Hamish where you are quoting from the completely biased and politically motivated migration observatory - their claims are laughable;

In addition to expanding labour supply, immigration can also increase the demand for labour.

Increase demand for labour by creating a massive oversupply? As Paul Daniels would say - "now that's magic!"

Migrants expand consumer demand for goods and services.

Not per capita they don't.

Both effects result in greater demand for labour and thus increased wages and employment in the economy.

Migration results in increased wages? Once again by creating an oversupply of labour? Must be magic again.

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

If you actually believe the University of Oxford is producing deliberately biased academic research as part of a lefty conspiracy to generate political propaganda, there is something very seriously wrong with you.

Whatever......Hamish.

Anyone who looks at the facts will clearly be able to see that the migration observatory is biased and politically motivated. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain who is willing to open their eyes.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100215921/why-are-taxpayers-supporting-pro-immigration-charities/

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You're talking about philanthropy by the Rowntree foundation, the Barrow Cadbury Trust, and the Princess Diana memorial fund for heavens sake.

Erm - yes that is the point.

The controversy is exactly that - that the Princess Diana Memorial fund has been hijacked for this purpose. It was never intended to be used for anything remotely political.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Sampong wrote: »

Anyone who looks at the facts will clearly be able to see that the [STRIKE]migration observatory[/STRIKE] migration watch is biased and politically motivated. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain who is willing to open their eyes.

Fixed that for you.

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Right OK. Well that's somewhat childish and ridiculous - the way it usually goes when you hit a wall. I've posted damning evidence about migration observatory, none of which you can refute, and you think by editing my words in a quote it can somehow turn back time and make us all forget that you said;

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's not a "pro-immigration facility" Graham.

If they come across as such to you, it's because unlike most of the sources you quote, they report the evidence honestly and accurately and don't spin it for anti-immigration political purposes.

You claim they are not pro immigration. And they claim it too. But the reality is very different. So they shoudn't make those claims. And neither should you.

Oh, and for the record, I haven't claimed anywhere in this thread that migrationwatch are unbiassed (although in my opinion they are a hell of a lot more objectve than any of the rubbish you post).

But the point is still - that migration observatory claim to be completely unbiased - when they are not.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Sampong wrote: »

I've posted damning evidence about migration observatory, none of which you can refute,

I'm not sure which is more laughable, that you think what you posted was either "evidence" or "damning" (as opposed to politically biased tripe by anti immigration sources) or that you think I'd bother to refute it, seeing as how most people see right through you.

You claim they are not pro immigration. And they claim it too.

Funny that.

Because of course, they are completely neutral and unbiased.

But the reality is very different. So they shoudn't make those claims. And neither should you.

Eh?

Just because a few anti-immigration zealots claim they're biased, doesn't make it so.

You do realise the irony in quoting right wing commentators and anti-immigration campaign groups accusing a research body of being "biased"?

Oh, and for the record, I haven't claimed anywhere in this thread that migrationwatch are unbiassed (although in my opinion they are a hell of a lot more objectve than any of the rubbish you post).

But the point is still - that migration observatory claim to be completely unbiased - when they are not.

What I repeatedly find surprising in this debate is that you are such an anti-immigration fanatic, that you are willing to go to such desperate lengths and engage in endless mudslinging to try and refute the overwhelming body of evidence that immigration is a good thing economically and fiscally for the UK.

If you just dropped that nonsense, and accepted that immigration is vital to the nations finances and economy and to rebalance the demographics of an ageing population, then you might be able to actually garner some sympathy about the few immigration concerns which are actually legitimate.

mEwbie

I think we should stop advertising the jobs and keep them more secret. Instead of big adverts in whereever they put them - they should just put them in the local Post Office.

Then the people who want to come and take our jobs could stay at home cause they wouldn't think there was a job so they wouldn't bother coming over and making a nuisance by doing the job.

If British people got down the Post Office nice and quick then they could get the job instead. And if they didn't want the job because it was not much money or a bit dirty then the Post Office could send a card with the job on it to the foreign person saying we don't want it anyway.

And... if the foreigner said he didn't want it then we could say how lazy they were about not coming over and stealing our jobs. Then we would have to go really foreign and maybe employ a Chinaman.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mEwbie wrote: »

I think we should stop advertising the jobs and keep them more secret. Instead of big adverts in whereever they put them - they should just put them in the local Post Office.

Then the people who want to come and take our jobs could stay at home cause they wouldn't think there was a job so they wouldn't bother coming over and making a nuisance by doing the job.

If British people got down the Post Office nice and quick then they could get the job instead. And if they didn't want the job because it was not much money or a bit dirty then the Post Office could send a card with the job on it to the foreign person saying we don't want it anyway.

And... if the foreigner said he didn't want it then we could say how lazy they were about not coming over and stealing our jobs. Then we would have to go really foreign and maybe employ a Chinaman.

Rusty.....:o

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

"The Migration Observatory is a part of Oxford University’s Centre on Migration Policy and Society (COMPAS) and as such adheres to the very highest standards of academic rigour. It draws on a range of experts from a variety of disciplines throughout Oxford University.

Migration Observatory is completely independent and does not aim to achieve any policy goal. The objective of the Observatory is to provide solid, fact-based analysis that can be used to inform all sides of the debate."

That's not a "pro-immigration facility" Graham.

If they come across as such to you, it's because unlike most of the sources you quote, they report the evidence honestly and accurately and don't spin it for anti-immigration political purposes.

Indeed.

The times, the telegraph AND the BBC describe this charity as pro immigration.

It receives funds (chanelled to it by highly dubious methods, one search on google will give you all you need) from the pro immigration group Changing Minds and has received £350,000 recently.

Migration watch state:

The Daily Mail recently reported on the Diana Memorial Fund’s financing of a pro mass immigration campaign. The article highlighted the role of the Migration Observatory in this campaign, called “Changing Minds”. The Migration Observatory has not responded to our questions seeking clarification of their position. However, we have now looked further into this issue ourselves and have found a systematic attempt by a small group of charities to influence public opinion on immigration. These charities are, of course, free to undertake such a campaign but it seems that the Migration Observatory which claims to be impartial is a key vehicle in their campaign. Their website declares their funders but makes no mention of their connection with this campaign. There must be some question as to whether such activity is appropriate to a major university.

The Migration Observatory is itself advised by a senior jouranlist of the Guardian, and the husband of Poly Tonybee.

The Princess Diana Memorial Fund, to which millions of her admirers donated money, has been hijacked by Left-wingers to fund a pro-immigration propaganda campaign.

Directors of the charity set up a secretive project called Changing Minds and then channelled hundreds of thousands of pounds into a string of associated organisations.

The aim of the scheme is to alter British attitudes to immigration – which are currently in favour of far stricter border controls.

Among some of its most successful achievements, it lists the establishment of a new ‘independent’ think-tank – criticised by a Labour MP as a front for Left-wing views on immigration.

The Migration Observatory is advised by a senior journalist on the Left-wing Guardian newspaper, and the husband of its star columnist, Polly Toynbee.

But on the other hand, you state "it isnt".

mEwbie

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Rusty.....:o

It's a fair cop.