I missed your first comment. So far you come across as someone who’s mind is made up. Would you care to comment a bit more openly? We had been discussing emmigration as well as immigration. Are you aware that that occurs?

Will Andalucia become Spurs supporters in the hills? Will anyone, much, care? There or here?

Freedom of movement is a good thing, discuss.

I’m not sure what I should be thinking about here? I have no doubt that the perception that new asylum seekers are getting all the resources while Britons have to wait in line, as perpetuated by the BNP, makes people think the system is unfairly stacked against them.

But that doesn’t take away from my article, or refute the fact that about 1% of such housing went to ‘foreigners’.

Secondly, on immigration. It isn’t about the Guardian refuting the stats… it is about how you view them: whether one sees immigration as a cultural and economic benefit, or one sees a problem with non-whites coming into the country to work.

And… why can’t they refute the right-wing tabloids with their stories of soft judges and social workers ? Britain is most punitive nation in Europe etc etc”

I’m not sure what you want my response to be. You’d like me to “refute” the “fact” that tabloids always pick up on anecdotal cases where social workers or judges are “too soft” on people?

Unless you’re talking about some piece of govt policy across the board which is unduly lenient on asylum seekers, there are no “facts” to be refuted. Only examples blown up by tabloids to pretend there is a broader trend. If you fall for it, that’s your problem not mine… right?

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jon_cruddas/2007/05/making_barking_mad.html

Lynne Featherstone in Haringey agreed with MH btw :

“In Haringey – where we have a desperate housing need and high immigration – these issues walk into my surgery week after week. What is actually the case is there is a clash – but it’s not racial – anyway not here in Haringey.

It’s a clash between the ‘already here’s’ – and they are of every race and culture – versus the ‘newcomers’. And the system of points for housing that gives priority to number of children, illness, etc often results in what either is or looks like queue jumping. That does cause resentment. What we need is a system that is both fair and transparent. It’s difficult to balance the rights of those who have already been waiting with those newly in need, but it’s a balance we have to strike – and in an open, transparent way so that people can have confidence in the system.”

http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2007/05/margaret-hodge-and-housing.htm

Really, Sunny. I just wondered if it WAS true. Can’t you address the ball and not the man ? Or should I be responding “perhaps you’d rather not think about it, in case it IS true ?”.

I’m being quite serious. And this is a serious politics site on occasion. Isn’t it ?

For the last 10 years I’ve been reading in the Guardian

a) “why can’t they refute the right-wing tabloid scare-mongerers with their exaggerated immigration stats ?”
b) “why can’t they refute the right-wing tabloids with their stories of soft judges and social workers ? Britain is most punitive nation in Europe etc etc”

It turned out that the reason for the inability to refute was a dire shortage of evidence. The moronic tabloids turned out to be right on the money.

So when I hear “why can’t they refute …” in the Guardian, my nose twitches suspiciously …

Education Secretary Alan Johnson has added his voice to attacks on trade minister Margaret Hodge over comments she made on housing allocation.

Mr Johnson accused her of “using the language of the BNP” after she said British families had a “legitimate sense of entitlement” over immigrants.

Jon Cruddas and Peter Hain, who like Mr Johnson are Labour deputy leadership hopefuls, have also attacked Mrs Hodge.

Link

You are wrong. But you are welcome to recruit Ms Hodge. We’re done with her.

If you were white, of course.

Oh yeah I remember the adverts in the newspapers. Go to Australia for £10

I take your point about the pace of central government response.

William,

Interesting. There was also an outflow of folk from the UK to Canada and Australia. You could get assisted passages out as well as in. Wierd.

Recently I have got to know a guy via an adult education class. He is 87 years old and one of his jobs in the past, that is in the 1950s was to visit Embassies, Consulates and discuss, persuade etc how to get people to come over to the UK to sort out the labour shortage.

I’d have thought, as a non economist, that people coming here to work added to the overall wealth, although there are obvious costs surely these ought to be met out of their taxation burden, no?

Taxation is a centralised function, whereas a lot of services have to be provided locally via centrally provided grants. The basis for setting these grants is subject to change, but only very slowly.

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9193822

but if there is more work to go around than there are people to do it, is immigration not well nigh inevitable

Sure – but there is also a cost function in there, and evidence that for some sectors there have been negative wage pressures as a result.

Economics is not my forté – some would wonder whether I have a forté at all – but if there is more work to go around than there are people to do it, is immigration not well nigh inevitable? If I remember correctly there was internal migration, from UK regions, to the SE for similar reasons, going back donkeys years.

Indeed, immigration was positively encouraged:

http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/ss-windrush/biography/windrush-biography

Briefly:

“An advert had appeared in Jamaica’s Daily Gleaner newspaper on April 13th, offering cheap transport on the ship for anybody who wanted to come and work in the UK. The war had created a labour shortage but many of the positions were low-paid and lay unfilled.”

I’d have thought, as a non economist, that people coming here to work added to the overall wealth, although there are obvious costs surely these ought to be met out of their taxation burden, no?

I agree that the Home Office got it spectacularily wrong. My question is, does it matter? Ah, the problems of running a successful economy….

A2 EU citizens need to be workers for 2 years before having recourse to public funds.

And AFAIK A2 citizens do not have an automatic right to work here, they need to go through the work permit route.

Err, yes and no. Yes if you are talking about outside the EU, and no if you are talking about within it. The SE of England is an economic magnet, and there is nothing, bar withdrawal from the EU that can be done about people following the money. Personally I think it is no more than a symptom of a vibrant economy. And thus a good thing.

In part I agree with you – though of course there are economic costs and they tend to be levied on people who aren’t benefiting from the vibrant economy, which is where the resentment comes in.

Having said that, at least part of the problem is that the Home Office predictions for migration from A8 countries was easily an order of magnitude lower than what actually happened.