The rise of Extremism in Economically tough times

Seabee42

Current net immigration numbers are the whole population of Croydon arriving every year and these are reduced a bit from Labour days. Believe me one Croydon is enough.

Labour wont do anything because 80% of immigrants vote labour. The Tories are just pretending because they want cheap labour for fat profits for there pals. Everyone seems to say immigration is good for the country and yet clearly not what with food banks, low wages, cultural segregation etc. They just means its good for them!

Are people really trying to tell me the 650,000 who arrived last year are all setting up businesses employing people and paying lots of tax?

According to a report on the BBC only the top 10% of tax payers are actually net contributors to the system so clearly all immigrants must be in that group if its so good for the country? Is that why only minimum wage jobs are left?

Labour and Conservative have no real answers or at least do not want to change things, the Liberals are busted so what does that leave? Its easy to see why UKIP got votes even if they are poor.

wotsthat

Seabee42 wrote: »

Are people really trying to tell me the 650,000 who arrived last year are all setting up businesses employing people and paying lots of tax?

My family were 'immigrants' to my city in the mid 1800's - they came from a long line of agricultural labourers and moved up from Dorset to work on the railway. Net contributors or not their labour was essential.

I understand that the first of my family was unable to read and was an industrial labourer, his son was a fireman, his son was an engine driver, his son was an engineer, his son owned an engineering business, went a bit Pete Tong with my dad but my generation all have degrees and have continued to progress.

We all now pay lots of tax.

The pattern will be repeated.

Seabee42

So we should just carry on increasing the population regardless? How many is to many? Is there no limit?

I wish the history of immigration had been so good clearly there are no problems at all.

The reason for so much negativity is there seems no middle ground, why cannot there be limited selective immigration after all 300,000 people left last year (probably mostly students but even so). Why does the population have to go up from this? People talk about aging but that's just a Ponzi.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

My family were 'immigrants' to my city in the mid 1800's - they came from a long line of agricultural labourers and moved up from Dorset to work on the railway. Net contributors or not their labour was essential.

I understand that the first of my family was unable to read and was an industrial labourer, his son was a fireman, his son was an engine driver, his son was an engineer, his son owned an engineering business, went a bit Pete Tong with my dad but my generation all have degrees and have continued to progress.

We all now pay lots of tax.

The pattern will be repeated.

you aren't being serious are you?

danothy

Seabee42 wrote: »

People talk about aging but that's just a Ponzi.

No, increasing the working age population to balance an ageing population is not 'a Ponzi', as the increase in life expectancy cannot continue indefinitely. When life expectancy levels out (i.e. stops increasing) a proportionally sized fixed working age population would balance it.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

Those outcomes plus a hung parliament aren't that far apart in the betting really. ....

The odds on offer do appear to show that there is no clear favourite at the moment.

Generali wrote: »

....Hell, they couldn't even put together a manifesto for themselves last time. ...

Oh, they did have one. Here's the BBC summary of what was in it -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8617187.stm

Of course, our Nige now says it was all 'drivel' so, presumably, we shouldn't take much notice of its contents.

Generali wrote: »

....I reckon laying UKIP getting more than one seat will be the value bet for the next election. They might sneak in somewhere but even if they have the support they don't have the machine to get the voters out.......That's not me being anti-UKIP, more observing the difficulty of fighting against power politics. Even the Liberals (now Lib Dems) hold an advantage 100 years after Lloyd George.

It depends on how organised they can get themselves. Of course, UKIP do now have the advantage of having 300 or more foot soldiers paid for by the public purse to help get the vote out. That's still not as many as the LDs, but it's a considerable advance on last time around.

wotsthat

Seabee42 wrote: »

So we should just carry on increasing the population regardless? How many is to many? Is there no limit?

Oh and yeah pretty much everyone can have a degree now days not sure what they mean though.

Increasing the population is part of the solution to the demographic problems we face. It's only part of the solution in conjunction with..

- burying our heads in the sand and leaving the next generation to sort it
- working longer
- reducing the size of the state
- mobilising the unemployed to compete with low skilled immigrants

With sensible debate we can decide how big a part of the solution we'd like immigration to be.

38% of the working population have a degree. What does it mean - well they're more likely to be employed, less likely to be looking for work and less likely to be inactive. They'll be earning more too.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

you aren't being serious are you?

Yes. Immigration is part of the solution.

How big a part is up to us.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes. Immigration is part of the solution.

How big a part is up to us.

for what problem is immigration a solution?


and just for fun it would seem that one of your ancestors was an immigrant and you are 6 generations down

then that immigrant has contributed only 1/64 of your genetic makeup
the other 63/64 th comes from elsewhere

so where your brains comes from remains a mystery

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

for what problem is immigration a solution?

Not having enough workers to support the ageing population.

Other solutions of course but they're not universally popular either.

CLAPTON wrote: »

and just for fun it would seem that one of your ancestors was an immigrant and you are 6 generations down

then that immigrant has contributed only 1/64 of your genetic makeup
the other 63/64 th comes from elsewhere

Yes some immigrants have the audacity to breed.

CLAPTON wrote: »

so where your brains comes from remains a mystery

Same place as yours - an agricultural labourer probably descended from an immigrant.

Obviously you went to a nicer finishing school.