Perception vs Reality

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There you go, some good data in the below....

http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/pb_imm_uk_27sept13.pdf

European migrants to the UK are on average better educated than the average UK worker.

It's an interesting read.

Interesting article even if not by an impartial organisation. It seems although the eastern European immigrants are better educated than indigenous people the majority are going into low skilled jobs. The effects on employment seem fairly inconclusive but the low paid seem to be the losers.


As an aside it confirms what I though in that a very small percentage of EU immigrants claim benefits before they work. Although the percentage is low the numbers are fairly high so it should be discouraged but its not easy to do, perhaps our benefits system should be contribution based as I believe that confirms to EU rules.

leanderle

ukcarper wrote: »

Interesting article even if not by an impartial organisation. It seems although the eastern European immigrants are better educated than indigenous people the majority are going into low skilled jobs. The effects on employment seem fairly inconclusive but the low paid seem to be the losers.


As an aside it confirms what I though in that a very small percentage of EU immigrants claim benefits before they work. Although the percentage is low the numbers are fairly high so it should be discouraged but its not easy to do, perhaps our benefits system should be contribution based as I believe that confirms to EU rules.

I did have to claim unemployment benefit in Germany in 2005 when the company I worked for folded. Back then, I had to prove I had paid into any EU social security/NI fund for the twelve months before moving, and that I had paid at least one month into the German fund.

Although German social security probably has more problems than the UK, I imagine that system would at least discourage any potential professional benefit claimants.

Perelandra

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And an interesting excerpt from a blog comment in another thread....

And this is what I find most disturbing about UKIP.

When I studied "between wars" at school, I was astonished that the democratic process had been successfully used to gain power, through policies which ultimately history would determine at the time.

I could not, at least when I was at school, understand how enough of the population could have been "taken in" by National Socialist German Workers Party to elect them.

I'm very disturbed by the fact that I now understand far better how it could have been done, and that understanding has been given to me by Farage and UKIP.

CLAPTON

Perelandra wrote: »

And this is what I find most disturbing about UKIP.

When I studied "between wars" at school, I was astonished that the democratic process had been successfully used to gain power, through policies which ultimately history would determine at the time.

I could not, at least when I was at school, understand how enough of the population could have been "taken in" by National Socialist German Workers Party to elect them.

I'm very disturbed by the fact that I now understand far better how it could have been done, and that understanding has been given to me by Farage and UKIP.

you were taught very badly at school.

Perelandra

CLAPTON wrote: »

you were taught very badly at school.

In what way?

They were democratically elected, weren't they?

leanderle

Perelandra wrote: »

In what way?

They were democratically elected, weren't they?

Kind of, but the Weimar republic had become pretty undemocratic for about three years before Hitler was elected. The Reichstag was pretty chaotic, and it was almost impossible to achieve majority at the time.

Consequently, the president appointed various minority governments from most of the political parties, and relied on presidential decrees from emergency powers in the constitution.

Hitler was appointed at a time the NSDAP was losing popularity, and was basically appointed as all the other political parties had fallen governments. Even then, he had to form a coalition with the DNVP.

If you're talking about the popularity of the NSDAP due to a political party backed by a charismatic leader who made a point that he wasn't part of the Prussian elite and seemed to offer easy solutions to the deficit and recession, then you have a point.

Thrugelmir

leanderle wrote: »

and seemed to offer easy solutions to the deficit and recession, then you have a point.

There were no easy solutions. Under the Treaty of Versailles , Germany had agreed to make war reparations equivalent to the tune of £214 billion in today's money. The seeds were sown for discontent amongst the wider populace.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bumping, as, well, it remains relevant....

TickersPlaysPop

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

I think it's because those foreigners are in the more visible sectors of the population.

If you remove the 34% of the population who are children or retired and therefore have less physical impact in the community, the numbers start to come more significant.

To use the Eastern European example above, these people are in their peak working and socialising years. They're out in the towns enjoying their leisure and most are employed in services and trades that involve a high degree of contact with others. So their presence is maximised.

It's not just the numbers as a percentage that influences perception, it's how visible those individuals are.

Also, we need to consider the fact the figures might be wrong. I think authorities have not been focusing on this up to now, so there is a good chance the % non British in Newark figure is wrong.

dktreesea

Bantex wrote: »

Many are forced to return from countries like Spain when their cash runs out.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed, although I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion, or to the fact that most EU migrants don't bring their aged relatives with them.

But back to that point anyway, many millions of Brits remain overseas, in fact, there are roughly as many Brits overseas as there are immigrants here, despite the fact some return eventually, more go in their place.

Do you suggest we should lock down the borders (prompting retaliation from elsewhere) and just swap those few million people back?

Or were you thinking more a one in one out policy...:rotfl:

I would say Bantex's observation is quite relevant to the discussion.

Britons in Spain, faced with a loss of income, cannot fall back on the welfare state there to support them, not because there is no welfare state, but because that particular country's welfare state requires people to have paid into the system before they can get things like unemployment benefit.

So people in that situation, far from being able to be a burden on Spanish taxpayers, would instead be forced to return to Britain. If they were to do so, they would be able to take advantage of the generous pension credit, even if they hadn't paid into the system for enough years to get a full state pension via previous employment.

Which suggests what hurts Britain is not the immigration levels but the structure of our welfare state.

As to most EU migrants not bringing their aged relatives with them, I would add the word "yet" to that statement. We simply haven't had enough years of the high levels of EU immigration, particularly from the A8, Bulgaria and Romania to be able to test that theory.

The government, imho, is far too wishy washy and scaredy cat of reforming the social welfare system. They could easily put in place something that goes along the lines of anyone coming to the UK, including their own citizens, who seeks to claim contribution based JSA on arrival can do so provided they have, in the past, paid into the system for "x" number of years. Anyone who want to claim income based jsa, along with all associated benefits, will not be eligible until two years after arrival.

It's the same with things like child benefit. We should only pay child benefit if the immigrant's family members are present in the country, and even then, only after a long period of qualification, e.g. after one year if in full time work for a year, or after two years if unemployed during that time.