Pickled Politics






  • Family

    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Sajini W
    • Sid's blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • Aqoul
    • Big Sticks, Small Carrots
    • Blairwatch
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Catalyst magazine
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Derek Wall
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry's Place
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • Liberal Review
    • Matt Murrell
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy's Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Tasneem Khalil
    • The Other India
    • Tim Worstall
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Desi Pundit
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man's fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sakshi Juneja
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown





  • Site Meter

    Technorati: graph / links

    Migrants boon to economy


    by Sunny on 17th October, 2007 at 10:49 am    

    Migrants are more skilled and often more reliable and hardworking than British workers, and are fuelling the country’s economic growth to the tune of £6bn a year, according to the first official study of their impact published yesterday. The report for the government’s Migration Impact Forum also concludes that migrants on average earn more and so pay more tax than UK workers.

    The economic study says 574,000 migrants came to live in Britain for the long term in the 12 months to June 2006; in the same period 385,000 left, giving a net inflow figure of 189,000 - down 28% compared with the previous year’s net inflow of 262,000.

    From the Guardian yesterday. And there’s plenty more positive economic news on this topic.



    Print this page and comments   |   Trackback link   |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Current affairs, Race politics




    57 Comments below   |   Add your own

    1. newmania — on 17th October, 2007 at 11:12 am  

      The Government have been spinning this line for years and years, they well know noone belives a word of it anymore and everyone across the spectrum realises immigration is a problem . Migration watch say the actual contribution is a mars bar a month. I have been doing some calculations of my own based on the government figs…see below.
      The main point is that housing costs have more than eaten any gains and this rise is almost entirely due to immigration.Without any at all it would be a different country , not one i would feel hapy in perhaps , but we would all be better off.

      In 20 years the English white ethnic group will reach the end of a 1000 years in which they have been the majority in England . I have invented a bus with 30 people on it that you might have got on this morning and this is the way it will look now and in 2027 assuming current rates of change.

      Bus 2007
      30 people
      24 White English (80%)

      Bus 2027
      34 People
      17 White English (50%)

      Bus 2047
      38 people
      8 White English (21%)

      Show Your Working

      There was a net emigration of 107000 British and a net immigration of 292000 other ethnicities last year. This was in my recent boring stat mine, and based on government figures that may well be underestimates. .In the population 560000 arrive and 380000 leave annually so there is a net migration of 180,000 but the first figure is what people are really worried about because it is the coherence and integrity of the national culture that is perceived as threatened.

      The Changing Mix On The Bus Of England

      Call. England a bus of 30 people . As , in the 2001 census Eighty-seven per cent of the population of England gave their ethnic origin as White British we’ll say , and this is out of date , 26 of the 30 bus travellers are ethnically English. Population is, according to the government ,rising overall at 285000 per year. And the population of England is 50,000000. I have to guess here but my guess is that practically all that rise is in England certainly Scotland has been depopulating until very recently. In bus terms then you get a new passenger every five years more or less.
      By net ethnic change by immigration alone but one member of the bus ( to make it simple )changes from black to white every 4.1 years In twenty years then the bus will have 34 people on it of which 9 are now “other ethnicities” .
      However this does not include the vastly different rates of population growth of ethnic minorities. In fact English are replacing themselves at the staggeringly low rate of 1.4. In twenty years then by sheer non breeding the replacement rate is about 1.52 or 76 % so the bus will actually have in twenty years.2007, 30 People of whom are 26 White English By 2027 34 People 19 of whom White English
      In fact the 26 is the position at 2001 not 2007 . The change in proportion is also moderated by the assumption that population growth is all in England but I want to err on the side of caution. If we project the rate of change of proportion ( which we now know ) back and then recalculate the probable position at 2007.In 20 years the proportion of white English changes from 26/30 to 19./34 which is 86 % to 55 % or 1 and a half % per year ( in bus terms o.45) 2.7 actually so I’ll call it 2 again to err on the side of caution
      So the true position roughly and as far as I can work out is as I have mentioned above
      I appreciate of course that there are assumptions here but the basic figures are solid and the maths is just schoolboy stuff . I have moreover tried to drift towards the Conservative as I have gone through. I have shown the working any criticisms are easily made the final interation is aonly a bit of fun really as the peeiod is toom long .Is this a bad thing or a good thing . I would say it should be handled carefully and slowing the rate of change is clearly a sensible response

    2. sahil — on 17th October, 2007 at 11:22 am  

      “In fact English are replacing themselves at the staggeringly low rate of 1.4.”

      Can you show your source, from the economist I have 1.9 replacement rate i.e. steady.

      What also make you think that this figure is constant. Plus you have not realeased any figure on the fertility rates of non-whites (whatever that means). And you have implicitly assumed that their fertility rate is constant and will maintain at a high level (which is not borne out empirically). Plus you might also want to note that many of the UK’s new migrants are ‘white’ so your assumption that you are examining the ratio of white/non-white is wrong. Its more Anlgo-Saxon English/non Anglo-Saxon.

      Also why is this a problem? If anything mixed marriages and children are on the increase so more and more people are comfortable with this situation of mixed raced children.

    3. Riz — on 17th October, 2007 at 12:13 pm  

      You know what really aggravazes me? It’s them immigants. They wants all the benefits of living in Springfield, but they ain’t even bother to learn themselves the language.

      - Moe from the Simpsons

    4. Katherine — on 17th October, 2007 at 12:15 pm  

      Newmania, may I ask how you knew that the white people on the bus were, in your words, “white English”? Or is it just that “white and not obviously Eastern European” equals English to you?

      Just as a thought expermiment I present to you the case of a man I used to work for, aged 70, whose father was from Poland. The man I worked for was born in England, had lived in England for all of his life and was white. By your calculation I guess he would be called “white English”. However, had his father been from, say, India rather than Poland he would not have been white. He wouldn’t, in your little headcount, therefore have counted as “white English”, despite being just as English in either instance.

      Anyone who tries to start talking about immigration and uses headcounts of “white” as their starting point opens themselves up to accusations of racism.

    5. Riz — on 17th October, 2007 at 12:28 pm  

      Good to see positive news such as this. The issue is a complex one (with lack of a clear consensus) and the more we learn about it the better. A recent Despatches (link below) featured Jon Snow sheddding light on the costs + benefits on different immigrant communities. It made for insightful viewing.

      http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/immigrants+the+inconvenient+truth/867147

      The programme was based around this study:

      http://www.channel4.com/news/dispatches_pdfs/dispatches_immigrants.pdf

      Personally, I feel that Britain’s benefits culture screws up people’s incentives (including mine!) and that if the government does end up ‘addressing’ the perceived immigration problem,then this should be done not through the direct targeting of immigrant numbers but by changing the incentives (benefits, taxes on remittances abroad etc). Simply closing the door is not good for anyone.

    6. Ravi Naik — on 17th October, 2007 at 12:55 pm  

      “The Government have been spinning this line for years and years, they well know noone belives a word of it anymore and everyone across the spectrum realises immigration is a problem”

      When racists like yourself and the BNP start talking explicitily about emmigration as a problem with the same intensity as immigration, I will take you more seriously.

      And I would really like you to explain why immigrants have all/most of the blame for housing pricing. It should not be a problem for you since you seem to dominate maths at schoolboy level. :)

    7. newmania — on 17th October, 2007 at 12:56 pm  

      1.4. I .have it at home but I must admit it is a bit apocalyptic I only have sensible sources though…wouldn’t know where to look for anything else. On the other hand 1.9 sounds very high to me . How many white English have more than two children. Not many now, and with the length of generation getting higher all the time I would be staggered if we were replacing ourselves. This is mostly to do with house prices which is caused by immigration.( otherwise obviously it would correct itself ). I suspect one would have to be very clear about exactly which group you are talking about

      I agree there are assumptions but then when the government has a twenty year history of hiding the truth what choice do you have. I must point out by the way that it is common knowledge that there are another 600,000 at least here illegally and I have made conservative assumptions throughout. Additionally Migration watch who have been proved correct consistently tell us all these figures are massaged for the governments use . Clearly Labour are in trouble in the issue which is moving quickly

      I also agree that extrapolating over a forty year period is meaningless but the main reason it is meaningless is the growing anger and frustration that against the wishes of the overwhelming majority the country continues to be deluged with immigrants. Even immigrant communities themselves agree and it is highly likely that immigration will be controlled. If you are saying that social reasons will flatten out the high reproductive rate of immigrant communities, I would like to see your evidence. Not so far and ghettos are in many cases getting worse. London blacks and Islamic young men are more separate than their parents were ( I can give you stats on this )

      I also take your point that mixed race children are the fastest growing group , I have one myself and more to come …(touch wood) . This is a good sign . My wife and son are , of course , as English as me but then she comes from Bermondsey and he comes from Islington . Of course they are . Other insular groups do not mix and believe they have the right to their own country as if they were an invading force, rather than migrants who should come here to be English or at; least defer to the dominant culture when it conflicts publicly with their own . So some things are getting worse.

      Whether or not this s exactly right it does give us an idea of what is really happening beneath these banal government politicised reassurances. People will recognise the picture from their lives and quibbling starts to appear evasive . We have some choices to make then

      1 Control Immigration back to 1990s levels (ie 25% of now )
      2 Ditch Multiculturalism entirely and ensure the English may be a slightly different colour but they are still for the most part English.
      3 Accept that the 1000 year story of the English and their country is over to be replaced by a being a powerful minority as part of a patch work of ethnicities all “British “ in the legal sense , but little more

      In reality we part of all of these and 1, without doubt , is coming soon.. I would prefer much more 2 and much less 3 ( if any)

      I `m sure we can muddle though given half a chance by the fanatically pro immigration lobby in big business and the PC constituency. Most immigrants will readily understand feelings of attachment between a country and its ancestral people and the endless accusations of this and that grow tiresome

    8. newmania — on 17th October, 2007 at 12:58 pm  

      ravi Navik…That was exactly what I was doing.

    9. Oluseun — on 17th October, 2007 at 1:15 pm  

      Newmania-

      1) How does the evolving demographic of Britain support an argument for the limiting of immigration into the UK?

      2) Surely the arguments for and against the free movement of people into and out of this country should be based on its influence on the economy, public services and the social well being (cohesion, crime etc)?

      3) There is no strong arguments for why the traditional geographical demographic distribution of people should be forcible maintained. The free movement of people is part and parcel with a Free Market economy!!

      Keeping the bus “white” has nothing to do with it, maintaining British culture is another subject – that I feel is independent of the colour of an individuals skin!

      I have seen this “bus story” from you posted in the comments section of a few blogs now – the more I see it the less convinced I am of it having any merit or of its contribution to the debate on the levels of immigration!

      I feel sorry for your wife - if your main concerns included frettting about the diminshing number of so-called “British” Caucasians on the bus to work!!

    10. newmania — on 17th October, 2007 at 1:19 pm  

      Katherine …yes I take the point. I `m not a racist you can be any colour you like and be English.I think when the BNP refused to support the England football team on the basis of its “Colour ” they ( from their point of view) made a terrible misjudgement about the nature of patriotism in this country.The truth is of course far more various and complex but nonetheless….
      Ethnicity is the word and we know this problem is already with us in parts of the country where there are virtually segregated schools already in qhich English history is treated as an” Empiricist lie”…along Dave Spart lines.

      I only ask for common sense
      1 Control immigration…(not stop it )
      2 Stop this multicultural madness
      3 Encourage intergration

      With a modicum of care all wil be well but there are fanatics for whom to control immigration is a personal insult and a thought crime. Maginalising such extremists is all that is really required.

    11. Oluseun — on 17th October, 2007 at 1:30 pm  

      Newmania - ”Other insular groups do not mix and believe they have the right to their own country as if they were an invading force, rather than migrants who should come here to be English or at; least defer to the dominant culture when it conflicts publicly with their own . So some things are getting worse.”

      1) Why should it be a prerequisite for an immigrant to “defer to the dominant culture”. Monoculturalism isn’t the only alternative to multiculturalism – as what has been attempted in France.

      2) Culture - refers to patterns of human activity (shared schematic experience) and by definition evolved with time. There is no “White British” culture and if there was I see know reason for it should be dogmatically adopted or why it should be the states concern over its “preservation”???

      3) Are you suggesting that your son should forget or devalue his “Black British” or Caribbean/African culture/heritage and adopt that of White British?

    12. newmania — on 17th October, 2007 at 1:41 pm  

      How does the evolving demographic of Britain support an argument for the limiting of immigration into the UK?
      It does not if you accept the English and their culture have no special place in the future of England . Is that your view ? Is this our country or is it an international resource , like a car park ?How do you conceive of the country ?

      Surely the arguments for and against the free movement of people into and out of this country should be based on its influence on the economy, public services and the social well being (cohesion, crime etc)?

      Not necessarily. France is a lovely country I still don’t want England to be France although the points you mention are part of the story clearly

      There is no strong arguments for why the traditional geographical demographic distribution of people should be forcible maintained. The free movement of people is part and parcel with a Free Market economy!!

      The value of a free markets economy is highly dubious .Markets are powerful tools but indiscriminate and damaging. Markets serve us not visa versa ideally. All governments behave this way in practice. In this case the market is like using a psychotically animated combine harvester to mow the lawn

      Keeping the bus “white” has nothing to do with it, maintaining British culture is another subject – that I feel is independent of the colour of an individuals skin!

      Agreed

      I have seen this “bus story” from you posted in the comments section of a few blogs now – the more I see it the less convinced I am of it having any merit or of its contribution to the debate on the levels of immigration!I feel sorry for your wife - if your main concerns included frettting about the diminshing number of so-called “British” Caucasians on the bus to work!!

      Really ? I had forgotten. I think it highlights the effects of asymmetrical reproduction and emigration added to the immigration effect. People see this in their lives and if I am wrong , which is quite possible , then these are at least the sort of figures that should be established . Immigration is one part of the story not by any means the most important. Clusters are another important mathmatical concept lacking and you have to aknowledge the poltical input from a government which has quadrupled immigration and under attack from the BNP( The second choice of 35% of labour voters )

      (You are quite right to pity Mrs. N who lives a brutal life of domestic slavery and obedience :):)):)cough cough…)

    13. Sunny — on 17th October, 2007 at 1:52 pm  

      It does not if you accept the English and their culture have no special place in the future of England . Is that your view ?

      It’s a false dichotomy. No one is forcing English culture to change. The culture changes by itself as people adopt what they like. Are you going to tell your mates to stop eating curry because it dilutes English culture? Are you going to tell them to stop listening to American music? Or is this more about maintaining white-ness?

    14. Oluseun — on 17th October, 2007 at 1:53 pm  

      Newmania - What the hell is - “multicultural madness” that you talk of above?

      The failing of people to integrate is not the fault of multiculturalism but a combination of many factors!!

      Are you advocating that certain/inferior possibly cultures should not have equitable status within Britain – that we should all observe some or sort of predefined historical white British culture?

      This is surely madness and impossible. It would be impossible and unjustified to expect people to exclusively and immediately adopt the “culture” of a host country’s on arrival!

      What is wrong with being say … being Brazilian (maintains their Brazilian culture) living in Britain? Why is their need to anglophile everyone living here or for culture of the people within a geographically defined location to have a homogeneous way of life?

    15. newmania — on 17th October, 2007 at 1:54 pm  

      The question does not arise for us .

      Genrally you do do not accept there is a “British “culture( English really )” or that it has any special place or value , nor that there is a case for immigration control or asserting its centrality.

      I disagree with every element and experience has taught me that adherents of the pro immigration religion are unamenable to contrary views. You are , of course , in a tiny minority and it is an interesting fact that this small group opf extremists actually appear to set government policy at the moment . The Labour party are shifting rapidly and heard Nick Clegg use the phrase”..playing catch up on immigration…” recently.

    16. newmania — on 17th October, 2007 at 2:12 pm  

      to stop eating curry because it dilutes English culture

      I was thinking more of Common Law , Liberal democracy, secular society , English Language . Personally I would add a knowledge of our history , customs ,. You are right though most of the important things are unseen and take time ..thats why we have to reduce immigration back to the level of ten years ago.

    17. Oluseun — on 17th October, 2007 at 2:12 pm  

      It does not if you accept the English and their culture have no special place in the future of England . Is that your view ? Is this our country or is it an international resource , like a car park ?How do you conceive of the country ?

      Britain is a piece of land that has given human defined historical borders. No one owns Britain. Nor are people culturally or ethnically British. This concept has no meaning! You or any other White British person do not have any superior ownership rights to Britain simply because you happen to have been born within these borders or have Government given citizenship!

      Britain, Brutishness, British Culture is what we the inhabitant make it over time. This is how Britain has always been and how it has come to be as it is.

      ” Genrally you do do not accept there is a “British “culture( English really )” BINGO or that it has any special place or value , nor that there is a case for immigration control or asserting its centrality WRONG – can’t you read.

      No. I have said that the arguments for immigration control are should be independent of the need to preserve Britain’s historical racial demographic or for the every changing and “cultures” (which aren’t homogenous and run along side each other in different parts of the country and even within smaller populations like cities schools, political parties – look at the Lib Dems and the Tories. It would be impossible to try and define their cultures) within Britain.

      TO MAKE IT CLEAR

      1) There are no homogeneous or pure cultures
      2) There are no homogeneous races

      BOTH ARE MEANINGLESS so are not worth/possible to preserve and
      VALUELESS as a value can not be given to a meaningless concept!

    18. Sunny — on 17th October, 2007 at 2:45 pm  

      I was thinking more of Common Law , Liberal democracy, secular society , English Language .

      But we already do this. We speak English, adhere to common law and live in a secular society. If anything, it’s the system that makes allowances. For example, it gives special consideration to the Anglican Church. It teaches foreign European languages at school etc.

      This is why I want a constitution. But again, you’re talking about political calues, not social values or cultural habits.

    19. Rohin — on 17th October, 2007 at 2:55 pm  

      Hear hear Oluseun. (Brutishness…typo or Freudian?!)

      I can’t be bothered to engage with the same arguments again and again (the type that newmania is saying) and wonder if we can steer the discussion a different way.

      Thanks Riz for posting up those stats, I missed the documentary but heard about it. Someone has touched on the point I want to make.

      Immigrants no longer look different from white English people. This seems to confuse the racists. In fact, I know a lot of them want to say that they preferred the darkies to the East Europeans, but it’s a painful phrase to admit to.

      From the pdf:

      I see there are more Polish-born people in the UK now than Pakistani. That’s a significant statistic. 80% of those Poles have arrived in the last 10 years. They earn less per hour than just about anyone else, they are in the bottom five tax contributors BUT out of the unemplyed Polish, very few claim benefits.

      This quick example shows that generalisations about any immigrants are pretty meaningless. Although it was pretty astonishing to see 80% of Somalis live in council housing and 40% claim income support and child benefit.

      A constitution would surely serve to encapsulate the ‘British’ values we are all proud of, as in America - a country that has quite clearly been shaped by the myriad communities that arrived there, all of whom were asked to obey the written constitution.

      By the way, there are many other issues not taken into account. For example my main bugbear is the vast amount of East Europeans are healthy young people. None, and I mean none, register with GPs. Thus they come to A&E for everything. In ten years they are middle-aged with vodka-induced liver failure.

      It may sound peripheral but this directly impacts on the government’s plans to close hundreds of small hospitals - the plans for the NHS are untenable with the present immigration situation.

    20. Oluseun — on 17th October, 2007 at 3:15 pm  

      NO NO NO. I was thinking more of Common Law , Liberal democracy, secular society , English Language . Personally I would add a knowledge of our history , customs ,. You are right though most of the important things are unseen and take time ..thats why we have to reduce immigration back to the level of ten years ago.

      This sort of blinding ignorance astounds me.

      All of the mentioned above is one of the below and has nothing to do with “culture”!

      How can you anti-immgration people doing on about immigration resulting in the lose of “British Culture” when you don’t even understand what CULTURE is!

      The cries from the ignornant have tarnished this debate. The report published to today by the Government is an attempt to measure what immigration has bought o our country! And it isn’t all positive as suggested by Sunny’s post. There has been a cost as well as a gain. And that is the point of all this - evaluating it in the above terms.

      Not going on about to many browns on there are on any given bus, people prefering curries to fish and chips, the morality/value of immigrants and immigrants on supporting the British Football team.

      Rohin I know. Newmania I believes he is not discriminatory (no matter how overt) because:

      1) He is married to a black women.
      2) His wife is alright (She has his predefined British cultural values)….as he has said she was raised lived in South London. It would be a different story if she was raised in Africa!
      3) He’s is talking about limits because of cultural dilution and not colour.

      He deosn’t realise that asking someone to drop their self-defining culture at our borders and all start confirming to his more superior “British” culture is indeed racist/zenophobic.

    21. ChrisC — on 17th October, 2007 at 4:06 pm  

      “He deosn’t realise that asking someone to drop their self-defining culture at our borders and all start confirming to his more superior “British” culture is indeed racist/zenophobic.”

      I’m not sure it is “racist” - I might ask a white American to leave his gun behind, for example.

      Perhaps it is “xenophobic” - but so what?
      “I’m coming in and I can behave how I (self-definedly) like” is not exactly a recipe for success, is it?

    22. Ravi Naik — on 17th October, 2007 at 4:07 pm  

      “Are you advocating that certain/inferior possibly cultures should not have equitable status within Britain – that we should all observe some or sort of predefined historical white British culture”

      Newmania’s narrative is racist, because he is talking about preserving the “white English” identity, something that Asians and Africans cannot aspire to do, because you can’t change your race, even if you adopt local customs, and integrate yourself with people of anglo-saxon origin. Of course, one has to ask why he is having mixed-raced kids if he feels so strongly about preserving the majority of “white English” in his imaginary bus.

      Now, multiculturism is a great thing. It allows people to feel welcome in these shores, without feeling the pressure to erase their identities of origin as soon as they arrive here. Multiculturism gone mad, in my view, is when communities live completely detached from the mainstream community (”live as they want”). I see little point in having several nations within Britain, which don’t communicate or interact, but just “tolerate” each other. I also don’t believe that all elements of cultures should be preserved, especially those that stem from ultra-conservative and repressive societies, and clash with our values. It is a fact that Britain is a secular and liberal country on the whole, and communities that don’t aspire to those values tend to alienate themselves and future generations.

    23. ChrisC — on 17th October, 2007 at 4:18 pm  

      A constitution might help…though the contents would be sooo controversial!

      Have a look at
      http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?pageId=45&EventId=534

      Very interesting lecture by Prof Vernon Bogdanor on the problems there might be in drawing up such a constitution, especially as the UK parliament is now (to a very large extent) subservient to EU law.

      Leaving aside (if that’s possible) the ethnic composition of the UK “bus” - surely there must be *some* limit to its capacity.

    24. Mike — on 17th October, 2007 at 4:22 pm  

      Migrants boon to the economy

      Well, not according to the Telegraph.

      ‘Hundreds of thousands of immigrants are a drain on Britain and its economy, not a benefit, says a Left-leaning think tank.

      Migrants from many developing nations fail to pay their way, while those from wealthy countries, such as the United States and Australia, provide a boost for the economy.

      The report, published today by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), sets out to reveal which nationalities are “a debit on Britain’s balance sheet”.

    25. Ravi Naik — on 17th October, 2007 at 4:40 pm  

      Mike, I read the report. The conclusions are:

      “It is clear from the tables presented in Section 5 that there is considerable variation between the economic characteristics of immigrant groups. This confirms the findings of previous research (Sriskandarajah et al 2005). The heterogeneity of immigrant groups makes any discussion of the average or overall impact of immigration highly problematic. What we can say, however, is that based on the relatively simple ranking system employed in the tables presented above, it is clear that on most criteria, most immigrant groups do better in economic terms than the UK-born population. Overall, when we take into account the relative size of the groups studied in this report, it would seem that the average immigrant has better economic characteristics than the average UK-born person.

      In other words, no surprises.

    26. newmania — on 17th October, 2007 at 4:44 pm  

      My goodness there are shrill voices here aren’t there, and so aggressive .Fortunately I am tolerant and easy going sort of as chap myself and well able to accommodate your idiosyncrasies. So you think …. ( and I quote )

      “Britain is a piece of land that has given human defined historical borders. No one owns Britain. Nor are people culturally or ethnically British. This concept has no meaning! You or any other White British person ( we have agreed skin colour is not the issue here …but go on) do not have any superior ownership rights to Britain simply because you happen to have been born within these borders or have Government given citizenship!”

      Well ,as I say , that is a car park not a “ Nation”. I have already answered your point about the economy and resources and so on.( see above ) If I mean nothing to me country then my country means nothing to me. I feel, no loyalty to strangers simply because they are here and wish to make no sacrifices for them. I this is only a sorry blasted piece of waste land then I do not accept that there is any integrity to the democracy the taxation system and so on. A nation lives on loyalty and mutual regard , this is formed from a web of familiarity you do not value . Finally with no demos there can be no democracy as we see in N Ireland and increasingly in parts of England . I cannot resist pointing out that the countries from which our immigrant communities hail would be universally horrified to be informed they were no more than a Holiday Inn.. Like me they would detest your nihilistic Marxist inhumane vision of atomised strangers swapping credit cards in a vacuum. I doubt in your life you live by the bizarre fictions you profess to revere.
      Purity and homogeneity are irrelevant and , if I may say so , shallow ideas here.The a culture or people is a living organisms commonly pictured as bright fresh spring or river coursing over time , they change , they flow but they can always and must be defended . TS Elliot for example imagined a changing sculpture in his Grand tradition. Change and tradition are not easily discussed by those familiar only with 6th form political tracts .
      I do not accept your inhuman algebra people are driven by loyalty and love not efficiency , oddly it often seems that you get both at the same time . This is why multiculturalists are so keen to keep their children out of multicultural schools. . Your construction of faux philosophical logic is not really worth the trouble It is not the first time I have seen this semi educated construction which if I had the time I would unpack for you but I do not .

      Moving on
      Sunny-. ‘We speak English, adhere to common law and live in a secular society’
      Not universally not by a long way, ( who is we anyway ?)but in any case that’s just a start . When immigrants wish to be English the way Italian Americans wish to aquire the American then we are getting there but even then its not the same as Americans are all immigrants .The English are not and are defined by their steady resolute attachment to their island over a 1000years .Newcomers are entering an old club with generations of paid up membership ,.,Naturally it is not the same as walking into am empty space . Are we an inconvenience ? Sorry
      The ignorant ? I would say the cries of the aggressive coloniser tarnish the debate and it surely conducted at a most barbaric level if all that is allowed to be discussed is money. Oloseum has at least provided me with a positive definition of how the left / anti nationalist fraternity perceive the country which I will treasure. I need hardly say that in terms of practical politics it is beyond obsolete . As far as my family is concerned I really shouldn’t drag them into it ….African …?

      AS a side issue I deny that freedom and achievement are to be found in sticking in some fantasy heritage. Freedom is , of course, in the mainstream of English life . I have noticed that there is quiet some ill feeling between the so called Coconuts ( whiteon the inside ….yawn..) and the “Ethnics” . In my view there is only one way this can be resolved and the close we can get to it the better for everyone . The bright mono cultural future beckons . One nation, not many , One Nation caring for one another and living in Harriet Harramnay

    27. Jai — on 17th October, 2007 at 4:50 pm  

      In fact, I know a lot of them want to say that they preferred the darkies to the East Europeans,

      Because it’s easier to identify the former group ? ;)

      Or is this more about maintaining white-ness?

      I suspect that it’s about maintaining/promoting/emphasising whatever customs and values he perceives as originating in British, American or Western European society, and rejecting whatever originates from the rest of the world, particularly non-white societies.

      In a nutshell, he wants us to be “brown Englishmen”. Which is fine up to a certain point, except for the fact that a) why the hell should we reject the positive aspects of our heritage and culture, and b) the racists will still view us as “inferior” versions of Englishmen regardless of how “English” we become.

      So we’ll be English, just second-class English people from their perspective, particularly if we’re suppose to “defer” to the majority (to use Newmania’s term) in all aspects of values and customs, and presumably look to them as our primary source of reference in such matters.

    28. newmania — on 17th October, 2007 at 4:52 pm  

      Ravid , if there was unrestricted immigration to this country and we accepted millions a year net it would still probably be true that the immigrants would be economically better off than UK born citizens.

      Despite this ‘compelling’ arguement , most feel it would be unwise

    29. newmania — on 17th October, 2007 at 4:53 pm  

      So we’ll be English, just second-class English people from their perspective, particularly if we’re suppose to “defer” to the majority (to use Newmania’s term) in all aspects of values and customs, and presumably look to them as our primary source of reference in such matters.

      I `m here for you man!!…(ok I may have over egged the pudding a little )

    30. Mike — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:02 pm  

      Ravi,

      Exactamundo. Immigration is not prima facie a bad idea. It just depends on who and how many you let in.

      It’s a question of numbers - firstly.

      And a question of culture/IQ/qualifications - secondly

      I support immigration, that is to say, I support minimal immigration (ideally from inside of the European Union or from high-IQ nations like China, Korea, and parts of India). I oppose mass immigration of the unskilled, especially from the Islamic world and from war-torn regions like Mogadishu - which, as you well know, is not good for the economy. If anything, Islamic immigration puts pressure on free speech and encourages shedloads of spending on counterterrorism. Somalian immigration adds fuel to gangster-mugger-drug racket in London.

      Enough political correctness.

      Inequality is a brute fact of life. Get used to it, pinkos.

    31. Jai — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:07 pm  

      and parts of India

      Exactly which parts, Mike ?

    32. Mike — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:19 pm  

      Jai

      We need lots and lots of Sikhs, Hindu Brahmins, Indian Jews and Zoroastrian Parsis!

      Long live the Asian middle-class!

    33. Oluseun — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:24 pm  

      I except the England is a Nation but Britain is a political and historical geography.

      The free movement of people does not stem from Marxist principles but Liberal and Libertarian ones. It is most definitely not on the left of the political scale. It is a Human Rights concept.

      We are talking about Freedom, something you clearly don’t understand.

      If you are to put limits on peoples right to freely move around land that neither you or I own then there should be good reason.

      More brown people and the loss of “British culture” (which I believe does not exist) is not good enough. As I have said a continual evaluation the economical and social costs and to the present citizens of Britain’s is what is needed.

      Freedom is never unlimited despite what some say about Freedom of speech in this country. Only from such an evaluation can a decision on the levels of immigration, balanced with the peoples rights to move freely can be made!!!

      The politics of fear and racism shouldn’t play a part in such decisions!

    34. Mike — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:26 pm  

      But let me clarify my position.

      If a middle-class Muslim family from, say, Pakistan wanted to settle here, I would welcome them with open arms.

      But I don’t think it’s wise to open the door to unskilled Sunni Muslims, especially from Kashmir, Morrocco, and the North of Africa.

      I mean… just look at the baleful situation in Paris. Or Brussels. Or Rotterdam. Or Bradford. Or Beeston.

      An indiscriminate immigration policy will just lead to the ‘Bradfordisation’ of the United Kingdom. I don’t want that.

    35. Mike — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:33 pm  

      ‘The politics of fear and racism shouldn’t play a part in such decisions!’

      That’s a bit vague, innit? Immigration has actually increased identity politics and racial-consciousness, which libertarians (like myself) see as an inherently bad thing.

      Read this.

      Mass immigration of the unskilled Balkanizes society and impinges upon the right to ‘offend’ and speak freely. More diversity leads to more quangos, religious ‘hatred’ laws, diversity sensitivity courses, community leaders, so on and so forth.

      As Munira Mirza would put it: Diversity is divisive.

    36. Chris Stiles — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:46 pm  

      In a nutshell, he wants us to be “brown Englishmen”. Which is fine up to a certain point, except for the fact that a) why the hell should we reject the positive aspects of our heritage and culture, and b) the racists will still view us as “inferior” versions of Englishmen regardless of how “English” we become.

      To which an obvious response would be a, accept the positive aspects in both cultures. b, regect the negative aspects of both cultures. c, make allowances to the dominant culture on neutral issues. d, ignore idiots who still consider you to be inferior.

      The ease with which various communities have tried to do a&b&c varies a lot - and those that don’t try at all are castigated and rightly so. If you take the moral high ground and people still castigate you, then they are clearly idiots and should be ignored.

      Face it. If things were more rosey, people wouldn’t have to keep resorting to pointing to the behaviour of Brits in Spain - of in India 50 years ago - and saying “Well, at least we aren’t as bad as them”.

    37. Rumbold — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:50 pm  

      I am staunchly pro-immigration, but am always wary of using economic statistics to make an argument for particular levels of immigration. Is this how we judge our immigrants now? What if a report showed that immigrants were actually a net-drain on the UK’s economy? Should we start deporting them? Some groups will benefit the economy more than others- should we then bring in controls to keep out the others?

      How does one quantify the impact on the UK anyways? Can you place a positive or negative value on changing communities? What about children of immigrants- how are they assessed?

      I have not read through the report, but the bit Sunny quoted is largely nonsensical:

      “Migrants are more skilled and often more reliable and hardworking than British workers, and are fuelling the country’s economic growth to the tune of £6bn a year … The economic study says 574,000 migrants came to live in Britain for the long term in the 12 months to June 2006; in the same period 385,000 left, giving a net inflow figure of 189,000.”

      Of course GDP growth increased faster, as there were more people working. The question is whether or not GDP per head rose as a result of immigration.

      I prefer to believe that immigration benefits this country in other ways apart from economic, rather than trying to reduce this complex issue to a question of profit and loss.

    38. Mike — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:55 pm  

      Chris and Jai

      ‘Which is fine up to a certain point, except for the fact that a) why the hell should we reject the positive aspects of our heritage and culture’

      Which begs the question: why the hell should white people reject the positive aspects of their heritage and their culture by letting in millions and millions of foreigners who reach a critical mass in inner-city suburbs?

      If you think that a racial-cultural-religious-linguistic identity is important to ethnic minorities, then the same courtesy should be extended to people of paler complexions.

    39. Don — on 17th October, 2007 at 6:47 pm  

      Who gets to choose which cultural aspects are positive and which negative?

      If we agreed on that, there would be no need for debate. But PP is one of the few places where the majority of commenters even accept that their own culture has negative aspects. For the most part ‘the other’ is negative to the extent that it differs from ‘us’.

      Who is being asked to reject the positive aspects of their culture? By whom? Which aspects and how exactly are you being asked to reject them.

      Can we get specific? The only one I can think of is freedom of speech (see how I just arbitrarily labelled that as positive, chauvinist that I am), and on that front the pressure seems to be coming from several directions.

    40. soru — on 17th October, 2007 at 6:51 pm  

      ‘the loss of “British culture” (which I believe does not exist) ‘

      I think it was Golda Meir who said something very similar:

      http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Golda_Meir

      Anyone trying to make the case that there cannot possibly be, in principle, such a thing as ‘too much’, or the ‘wrong kind’, of immigration is not building a defensible position, not picking a fight they have any prospect of winning.

      As such, while making that argument is technically not quite the same thing as explicitly joining the side of the racist, it just happens to have about the same net effect on the outcome of the debate.

    41. Jai — on 17th October, 2007 at 7:22 pm  

      Which begs the question: why the hell should white people reject the positive aspects of their heritage and their culture

      Nobody is forcing white people to do so or even suggesting the above. Last time I looked, white people still make up the majority of this country, in terms of both numbers and their influence on the predominant culture. By a very large margin indeed.

      by letting in millions and millions of foreigners who reach a critical mass in inner-city suburbs?

      Precisely how does the presence of such individuals “force” English people to “reject” the positive aspects of their culture & heritage ?

      The very presense of people from other countries somehow “forces” English people to become “less English” ? Is that what is being suggested here ? And if so, in what way, exactly ?

    42. Ravi Naik — on 17th October, 2007 at 7:25 pm  

      Which begs the question: why the hell should white people reject the positive aspects of their heritage and their culture by letting in millions and millions of foreigners who reach a critical mass in inner-city suburbs?

      I am curious now. What positive - or indeed any -aspects of English heritage are in danger of disappearing from the hordes of foreigners that come here?

    43. Jai — on 17th October, 2007 at 7:27 pm  

      If you think that a racial-cultural-religious-linguistic identity is important to ethnic minorities, then the same courtesy should be extended to people of paler complexions.

      Incidentally, it’s quite revealing that Mike’s ire clearly focuses on non-white immigrant populations with regards to the “millions and millions of foreigners” he’s referring to, and ignores one of the fundamental points made on this thread, namely the absolutely huge numbers of recently-arrived immigrants from Eastern Europe.

      Don’t you regard them as “foreigners”, Mike, or is it only non-white people you have a problem with, even if they’re born in this country ?

    44. Ravi Naik — on 17th October, 2007 at 7:36 pm  

      I am staunchly pro-immigration, but am always wary of using economic statistics to make an argument for particular levels of immigration. Is this how we judge our immigrants now?

      Do you defend open-borders in this country? If not, why?

    45. Chris Stiles — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:01 pm  

      and ignores one of the fundamental points made on this thread, namely the absolutely huge numbers of recently-arrived immigrants from Eastern Europe.

      Because absent their colour - which is absolutely a factor some of the time. Their cultures are slightly more similiar - in the same way that Krakow is more like Lincoln than Quetta. Cultural distance does matter.

      It would perfectly possible to posit a case of a ‘Staunch Polish Catholic farmworker’ versus ‘an unreligious East African Asian merchant banker’, but communities on average don’t work out like that.

      Go back a few threads, and we were discussing the varying success with which subcontinental groups have managed to get educated and seek employment in this country. The flip side of that is that there are a few communities which have been here for several decades but in which the average standard of English (albeit pulled down by older people) is worse than that amongst the average immigrant from the Czech republic who is working over here.

    46. Rumbold — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:11 pm  

      Ravi Naik:

      “Do you defend open-borders in this country? If not, why?”

      I do not believe in completly open borders, because of the space issue. However, I think that is different from saying that migrants are good or bad for this country depending on their economic impact.

    47. newmania — on 17th October, 2007 at 9:28 pm  

      Well this has been cooking nicely .
      Oleseum - Yes Britain is not a nation it has fractured since the war and is now beyond repair . It exists only to assist the labour Party now in an ongoing shameful ,act of Gerrymandering in Scotland . That is why it is easy to say Black British ….it means only that you are black with some legal entitlements . A black Englishman implies a true joining with others . This is what a nation is …obviously it will not purely this but the core must be there .” We “ cannot decide what our country will be if there is no “We”.

      Freedom of movement along the lines you suggest would be the end of war would it not . The Germans could have simply moved here. What pre-pubescent twaddle.

      Rumbold - Finally ..it is quite clear that we would al be far better off without immigration . There are some dubious benefits to big business but this is far outweighed by the pressure on Services and most of all house prices . Of the 3,000,000 new home s planned for the South east 1,000,000 will be inhabited by immigrants not here yet( N Soames from Govt. Figures). I `m not sure that’s the point free movement is desirable and many have a lot to add .Nonetheless to argue we are better off when in fact we have less in out pockets than ten years ago despite unremitting growth mostly due to mortgages is bizarre . There will be 70,000,000 in 50 years time. Why another 20,000,000 ? What possible good can it do .? How much irreplaceable countryside will be turned into dismal estates to accommodate the newcomers and for what?

      Mass immigration is of course useful for Tescos but Tescos is not ( gasp) an innocent charitable organisation

      Why is it so hard to accept a reasonable compromise of controlled immigration at low numbers with a tolerant emphasis on the majority culture .? Why must you all be so extreme , as if to fill the country with foreigners was some sort of holy mission. Suppose it might be nice but we just don’t want to ?

      On purely democratic grounds you are surely aware that a huge and increasingly vociferous majority believe immigration to be far too high. Nothing is done about it . Why should small elite govern against the wishes of the people in this way ? Surely in a democracy it is our wishes that count ?

    48. newmania — on 17th October, 2007 at 9:37 pm  

      Do you defend open-borders in this country?

      Without borders and control of themn you do not have a country at all. My suspicion is that for some ever increasing floods of foreign people is a sort of emotional vindication of the difficult seperateness being an outsider must bring .

      I understand but isn`t this like going to someones house smashing the Turner reproduction , hanging up a picture if your self and saying

      ” There thats better…oh sorry did you like it the way it was ….?”.

      Why not get over the needy thing and start joining the mainstream of the coutry and its concerns . Amongst these concerns are excessive immigration.

    49. Bert Preast — on 17th October, 2007 at 9:39 pm  

      Migrants are not a boon to the economy. If you’re going to come out with figures to say they are, where are the deductions for all the translators, the community cohesion and diversity officers, the strain on the police and prison systems, the strain on the health service, the extra costs for security and all the rest of it. No one ever comes out with those figures, because they show a massive net deficit.

      I’m not anti immigration, being an immigrant myself. But if immigration is to work then everything we’ve learned on the subject these past three decades tells us in giant sized neon lit letters that we’ve got to be picky about who gets in.

      Racism and nationalism was big in the 70s and 80s, then became deeply unfashionable in the 90s. Now all that good work is being undone, as unless you think the BNP’s rise from the ashes is down to their sound economic policies or the charismatic Mr. Griffin, racism is back with a vengeance. And that’s deeply unfair on the migrants the UK needs, and that want to be in the UK.

      It’s no good trying to dismiss the new racists as knuckle dragging neo nazis either, as they have two things. 1) A vote; and 2) A legitimate grievance. Poor white natives are doing worse than anyone else, and that’s because their jobs have actually been taken by migrants. You may say they didn’t want to work, but that’s hardly likely to make them feel friendlier to the migrants, is it? They’re dirt poor and pig thick, and sort of hoped a decade of Labour government would see the minimum wage raised, their dignity returned and their environment improved. What they got was told they were rubbish - that’s as maybe but they’re our rubbish and our responsibility - and they got to watch the government encouraging migrants to fill their boots rather than doing anything to close the gap between rich and poor.

      On top of this they get to see training schemes exclusive to migrants and ethnic minorities to help them better themselves, and watch their councils spend money on studies as to how the housing for minorities might be improved, with money that could simply have been used to provide more housing. They themselves get no preferential treatment whatsoever. All the time the middle classes are telling them the grat benefits migrants bring, while simultaneously dismissing any complaints as the rantings of scummy chavs and neanderthal thugs. Must sting a bit, eh?

      Yeah, Bert’s back. And his van’s bigger and whiter than ever \o/

    50. Bert Preast — on 17th October, 2007 at 9:40 pm  

      *there is nothing whatsoever racist about a van being white.

    51. Boyo — on 17th October, 2007 at 11:12 pm  

      Back to topic (?!). Obviously cheap labour will make buisness more competitive. Five Poles to a room will always outstrip a family man with mouths to feed. The ironic thing however is that this policy has been pursued by a Labour government which supposedly supports the working class. Instead it has presented it with the following unlikely or unsavoury options:

      1. Accept the minimum wage
      2. Find work in an area free of foreign competiton
      3. Vegetate on benefits

      Sunny presumably supports this policy because being of recent immigrant stock himself he sees it through rose-coloured glasses. But immigration is not a race issue, it’s a class issue, and today’s Labour Party is pursuing the kind of policies the Tories of yesteryear could only have dreamed of. Race is a red herring. Thi is about the rich screwing the poor and the so-called left cheering from the sidelines.

    52. Ravi Naik — on 18th October, 2007 at 1:08 am  

      “I do not believe in completly open borders, because of the space issue. However, I think that is different from saying that migrants are good or bad for this country depending on their economic impact.”

      So, you are saying that if we had space for 30 million people in this country,you wouldn’t care if they could contribute to the economy, or that all live on benefits.

      The fact is that a country’s well-being is due to the active population, the ones that provides services and pay taxes. When the UK government pays for education, it is not doing it for charity - it is an investment so that a new generation is able to contribute actively to the economy. So why shouldn’t immigrants be picked according to their capacity and ability to contribute to the economy as well?

      That leads to another point: the simplistic nature in which immigration is discussed. It seems there are only two narratives: that immigrants are boon to the economy, and that immigration drains Britain.
      Both narratives are obviously wrong since they treat immigrants as a homogenous group.

    53. 5cc — on 18th October, 2007 at 11:55 am  

      newmania - just a quickie. MigrationWatch have actually been caught out a few times. The report that mentions the Mars bar figure you quoted was quietly replaced with a new version on the MW site - because the main figure they used to support the Mars bar analogy was rubbish. They’d assumed a figure for the contribution of Eastern European migrants covered immigrants as a whole.

      In the same report, they switched between using net and total migration figures for their measurements to make it look as though different studies supported a conclusion they didn’t.

      In defending the figure, David Coleman himself actually gave a figure of his own that was more than 10 times higher than MigrationWatch’s original claim.

      In the very report this blog entry’s about, MigrationWatch are taken to task for counting children of one immigrant and one non-immigrant parent as half an immigrant for the purposes of calculating how much they’d take from the system, but as non-immigrants when they grow up and contribute to the system. Not very accurate, that.

      MigrationWatch are not so much consistently proved correct as consistently given favourable coverage in most of the press. Not the same thing.

    54. newmania — on 18th October, 2007 at 1:17 pm  

      MigrationWatch are not so much consistently proved correct as consistently given favourable coverage in most of the press. Not the same thing.

      Ineresting I`ll look into that. I take it by the Press you mean the right of centre Press and not the Guardian , Independent , Mirror and New Statesman. I am getting tired of this myth that the Press are anti “Progressive “.

      A figure ten times a Mars bar is not actually very difrent is it . A Packet of cigatettes ?In fact the house price issue is the main one , lowering wages another, use of services and the decimation of struggling educational facilties . Growth is in any case not an unalloyed good if it requires the country to be ruined in the process( and I am talking about building not pigment ).

      The economy has been growing for 25 years and we are worse off. Tax immigration and ( to be fair ) old age are the reasons.
      I am not a fan of picking economically good peopple to be allowed in anyway. I would like a tolerant flow of people but not a flood. The profitability of it is secondary.I ask for common sense, I get crazed colonist aggression

    55. newmania — on 18th October, 2007 at 1:23 pm  

      Just checked and you are wrong .

      Yes but they also add to population.
      In a recent parliamentary debate, a Home Office Minister gave an official estimate that “migration has increased output by at least £4 billion and (accounts for) 10 - 15% of economic trend growth” But the Government had failed to take into account the addition to population. In 2005 net immigration was 185,000 which, on a population of 60 million, is 0.31%. At the same time the government’s estimate of £4 billion on a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of approximately £1,250 billion is 0.32%. The benefit in terms of GDP per head is therefore trivial – about 0.01% of GDP or just 4p per head per week – less than a Mars bar per month.
      As for the claim that migration accounts for 10 - 15% of trend growth, the result is the same. Trend growth is 2.5% so 10-15% of trend growth is 0.25% to 0.375% of GDP. The effect on GDP per head is therefore a small negative or positive amount.
      Other recent studies in the UK, and studies carried out in other countries, point to the same conclusion – namely that immigration makes little difference to GDP per head.

      This is basic maths . House prices , services and so on have not been taken into account. It is opretty clear what the conomists would have us do . Pull up the drawbridge

    56. 5cc — on 18th October, 2007 at 2:04 pm  

      I assure you I’m not wrong, since I was the bugger who contacted the Home Office, found out MigrationWatch were using the wrong figure, contacted MigrationWatch and got them to change the briefing paper on their site.

      You’re accessing the archived older version of the paper - not the current version on the site, ‘The Impact of Immigration on GDP per head’, which says in its opening:

      “Since this paper was first published in January 2007 it has been brought to our attention that:

      a) The Home Office Minister was confusing two issues in the same sentence [i]. The estimate of a £4 billion contribution by immigrants to GDP was intended to refer to the contribution of migrants from the 8 central and east European countries (A8 migrants) since their accession to the EU in May 2004. The reference to economic trend growth applies, of course, to the contribution of all migrants in one year.

      b) The data recorded in the Accession Monitoring report concerning dependants of migrant workers was incorrect[ii] We have therefore revised the calculation using National Institute Economic Review data on dependants which is more reliable.

      2. The paper below has been amended to take account of these points but they do not affect the thrust of the conclusions at paragraph 20. [That’s arguable, but they do remove the whole Government calculation that allows MW to arrive at their Mars bar figure.]

      3. The original version of the paper can be found by accessing the Archive item number 1.15.

      You’d expect an organisation committed to honesty to flag that in the archived version so people aren’t confused, but there you go.

      And before you point out that MW’s calculation of the NIER figures above the government ones supports the government calculation - it doesn’t. It uses the figure of total migration rather than net migration. If it used net migration as it did with the government figures, the findings would be about the same as Prof Coleman’s claim.

    57. 5cc — on 18th October, 2007 at 2:21 pm  

      “Ineresting I`ll look into that. I take it by the Press you mean the right of centre Press and not the Guardian , Independent , Mirror and New Statesman. I am getting tired of this myth that the Press are anti “Progressive “.”

      Mainly. Whether or not you’re tired of the fact that the press is overwhelmingly right wing, that doesn’t make it a myth. I notice you only managed to think of three out of ten daily national newspapers that could be described as not right of centre. You had to bung in a magazine to make the numbers up.

      “A figure ten times a Mars bar is not actually very difrent is it .”

      Yes, it is very different. It’s ten times the difference.

      Now, ten times a Mars bar is still low - but who ever suggested that to take the excess in GDP contributed by around 200,000 people and divide it first by sixty million and then again by fifty would or should give a high number? Except MigrationWatch, that is. The argument is a strawman from the get-go.

      You could do the same with practically any section of the population. Nurses, for instance. Or firefighters. Nobody’s claiming we should limit the numbers of those two professions though.

      It’s also incredibly weird that anyone would use the low extra contribution of migrants when divided by sixty million and then again by fifty to argue for a reduction in the number of migrants. That would necessarily lower the extra contribution they make as it would reduce the main pot.



    • Post a comment using the form below

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2007. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.