UK needs +7 Million immigrants to keep debt down

chewmylegoff

the source hamish is using probably is biased, but quoting from migration watch to prove it is a bit like proving that arsenal are crap by asking a tottenham fan what they think of arsenal.

kabayiri

The solution to paying for our future care needs is technological advancement, increasing productivity.

Automation will reduce the numbers of people we need in future.

I suspect the reason this is never grasped by Hamish is that most robots don't need houses.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

Indeed.

Because it isn't.

And mudslinging from a few anti-immigration groups who don't like the facts and evidence won't change that.

Again, you do realise the irony in quoting an anti-immigration pressure group such as migration watch claiming that Oxford University is "biased"?

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

Lol. The bit that I thought that was damning evidence, was the part where migration observatory were completely caught with their pants around their ankles, exposed, and outed for their actions in a national tabloid. Yes yes yes, I know it's the Daily Fail, which of course you refuse to read, which I suppose is why you missed it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Funny that.

Because of course, they are completely neutral and unbiased.

:rotfl:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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

A few anti immigration zealots? Migration observatory have been caught red handed Hamish! But I guess you can just close your eyes to the facts, and take comfort in the knowledge that it's the "migration zealots" making all this stuff up.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What I repeatedly find surprising in this debate is that you are such an anti-immigration fanatic

Actually I am pro immigration for the country - but the right kind of immigration, not non selective mass immigration which leads to importing an over supply of unskilled labour, foreign criminals whilst making it more difficult to bring in much needed skills from countries outside the EU. So you're making a completely false accusation there. You are trying to portray me as something that I am not - to the audience, as you always have done.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

, that you are willing to go to such desperate lengths

I'd not noticed that I was desparate......:)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

and engage in endless mudslinging

Endless mudslinging? You obviously don't like it that I have exposed the true colours of one of your "sources". There is no mudlinging from me. Just the opposing side of the argument which should be heard - under a democracy. Speaking of mudlinging, I can post a couple of linkys if you like to the threads where you posted pages and pages of tripe about Alex Wood;s alleged Nazi salute, which turned out to be false. Despite standing up to Police scrutiny, you still tried to claim otherwise - so mudslinging coming from you is at the height of hypocrisy.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

to try and refute the overwhelming body of evidence that immigration is a good thing economically and fiscally for the UK.

The "overwhelming" body of evidence published by pro immigration groups like migration obervatory you mean.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

Yeah - yeah - you have used the "if you just dropped it and accepted" passage several times now - so whatever......

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

The solution to paying for our future care needs is technological advancement, increasing productivity.

Automation will reduce the numbers of people we need in future.

I suspect the reason this is never grasped by Hamish is that most robots don't need houses.

Yes, yes, we'll all be working three day weeks while robots service our every need.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTZ76vhnKk

Sampong

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the source hamish is using probably is biased, but quoting from migration watch to prove it is a bit like proving that arsenal are crap by asking a tottenham fan what they think of arsenal.

Oh well that revelation ends it then. Thank you chewmylegoff for finally bringing the debate to a conclusion. It's all to do with football - why didn't I think of that.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed.

Because it isn't.

And mudslinging from a few anti-immigration groups who don't like the facts and evidence won't change that.

Again, you do realise the irony in quoting an anti-immigration pressure group such as migration watch claiming that Oxford University is "biased"?

Right, so, the Times, Telegraph and BBC are anti immigration mud slinging groups?

Indeed, anyone who says a bad word about the MO are put in the same camp?

Pointless arguing any further than isn't it? Very convinient that anything put to you is simply anti immigration propoganda.

I don't like the link to Changing Minds and the link to using Diana money which many thousands of people contributed to. Surely that is enough to make you wary. If that;s not enough, then surely the fact it's advised by a guardian jouranlist who's wife is Poly Tonybee has you asking yourself questions?

Anyway...you obviously back up with the migration observatory state. So, we've had 10 years of mass immigration. More people are working part time. More are unemployed. Wealth is decreasing. Wheres the utopia?

kabayiri

It's okay Hamish, we have to have some luddites here, to balance things out

I imagine people were similarly opposed to the automobile, and similar new fangled horseless contraptions.

Graham_Devon

And a link that's not from Migration Watch, which basically says the same thing but a telegraph journalist has delved into it all.

The key point from the entire article being:

The Fund sees itself as an “agent of change” with the Changing Minds project described as trying to “influence public opinion” and ”change public opinion”. Among the groups involved is the Migration Observatory, which often appears on the BBC as an impartial observer on immigration. The Observatory has received £350,000 from the groups that were part of the Changing Minds project, which it describes as just a "conversation".

Other recipients include the pro-immigration Institute for Public Policy Research (which also receives money from various government bodies), the Migrants’ Rights Network and the think-tank, British Future.

If that's not pro immigration when it's walking like a duck, quacking like a duck and looks like a duck I really don't know what is. However, we do know in Hamish's world it's not a duck, it's the fairy's dear little grandmother.

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

mEwbie

Hmmm. I am working on a more clever response once I figure out which side to take.