Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/05/07 01:14:44
Subject: Re:United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
BryllCream wrote: Yes, actually. Politicians should be leaders of people, not psuedo-social scientists.
"pseudo-social scientists"? Do you even understand what that means? I mean, are you actually claiming that these people are only pretending to be social scientists?
I'm reminded of that lady who went on a rant on the eve of WWI, talking about those 'so-called Germans'. I mean, whether or not you liked them they were German...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BryllCream wrote: It's pointless arguing with someone who insists that hope, fear and unity can be quantified. It's obvious that you have emotional or cultural connection to the rest of England, so it's reasonable to assume that you will not understand the feelings of the English people.
The reason UKIP are doing so well is that the entire political class thinks the way that Dael does - that if an issue happens, they should institute focus groups, speak to experts, spin the press etc. At no point does it occur to them to implement the beliefs of the people who vote them into office.
No, the reason the UKIP are doing well is because the economy in the UK is poor, and when the economy is poor people go in for vague nonsense that blames some random group for all their problems. Vague nonsense like "At no point does it occur to them to implement the beliefs of the people who vote them into office"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/07 04:49:54
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/05/07 08:52:41
Subject: Re:United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2013/05/07 09:34:08
Subject: Re:United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
No, the reason the UKIP are doing well is because the economy in the UK is poor, and when the economy is poor people go in for vague nonsense that blames some random group for all their problems. Vague nonsense like "At no point does it occur to them to implement the beliefs of the people who vote them into office"
Our economy has trashed heavier than this in the past, with a far greater impact, yet to electoral boost to a right-wing party. What gives?
Or is it a coincidence that many English people feel marginilised by immigration, at the same time as an anti-immigration party is getting votes?
Naaa na na na-na-na-naaa.
Na-na-na-naaaaa.
Hey Jude.
2013/05/07 11:04:00
Subject: United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
No, the reason the UKIP are doing well is because the economy in the UK is poor, and when the economy is poor people go in for vague nonsense that blames some random group for all their problems. Vague nonsense like "At no point does it occur to them to implement the beliefs of the people who vote them into office"
Our economy has trashed heavier than this in the past, with a far greater impact, yet to electoral boost to a right-wing party. What gives?
Or is it a coincidence that many English people feel marginilised by immigration, at the same time as an anti-immigration party is getting votes?
When was our economy worse? Because every time barring the late 40s (when a far right party wouldn't have been welcomed for other reasons) we have had a rise in the far right.
2013/05/07 11:07:26
Subject: United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
No, the reason the UKIP are doing well is because the economy in the UK is poor, and when the economy is poor people go in for vague nonsense that blames some random group for all their problems. Vague nonsense like "At no point does it occur to them to implement the beliefs of the people who vote them into office"
Our economy has trashed heavier than this in the past, with a far greater impact, yet to electoral boost to a right-wing party. What gives?
Or is it a coincidence that many English people feel marginilised by immigration, at the same time as an anti-immigration party is getting votes?
The BNP lost their one council seat, which doesn't argue for a strong anti-immigration movement so much as a complaint against the established parties. A protest vote, if you like.
It will be interesting to see how well UKIP do in four years, when they have a track record to look at.
Which fails to take into account the huge drop in prices of finished goods due to outsourcing in the third world. We're as rich now as we were in 2004, do you remember UKIP doing particularly well in 2004?
The BNP lost their one council seat, which doesn't argue for a strong anti-immigration movement so much as a complaint against the established parties. A protest vote, if you like.
It will be interesting to see how well UKIP do in four years, when they have a track record to look at.
Exactly, the fact that the BNP have been trounced in council elections would prove that this is *not* a xenophobic reaction caused by economic decline, as we've seen in France. More a sickening of the main parties - all of whom have identical policies on more or less everything.
If the conservative party adopted actual conservative policies on social issues, regardless of Europe, UKIP would collapse overnight.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/05/07 11:13:14
Naaa na na na-na-na-naaa.
Na-na-na-naaaaa.
Hey Jude.
2013/05/07 11:38:15
Subject: United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
Which fails to take into account the huge drop in prices of finished goods due to outsourcing in the third world. We're as rich now as we were in 2004, do you remember UKIP doing particularly well in 2004?
2004 is when the BNP were on the rise, which lead to the setting up of Unite Against Fascism (although this has more to do with terrorism fears than economic ones). The recession of the Late 70s/early 80s caused the rise of the National Front and the setting up of the BNP. The early 90s saw gains for the BNP at local levels. After 2008 the BNP saw more support leading to gaining two MEPs and an appearance on Question Time. The great depression caused the rise of the fascists ending in the Blackshirts.
Exactly, the fact that the BNP have been trounced in council elections would prove that this is *not* a xenophobic reaction caused by economic decline, as we've seen in France.
BNP support dwindles while UKIPs rises and you don't see the correlation?
Also do your research, the French voted in a socialist ahead of the right leaning, tough on immigration, Sarkozy.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/05/07 11:58:21
2013/05/07 12:22:02
Subject: United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
Spamming arguments with "CHECK THE EVIDENCE LOL EVIDENCE FACTS EVIDENCE IRREFUTABLE PROOF".
Wait. Did you just tell me off for 'spamming arguments' with evidence?
The existance of evidence does prove ones facts, especially if you look at the arguments against immigration.
You can argue as much as you like. It does absolutely nothing to affect the facts. I.e.
Fact: Immigration to this country is going down.
Fact. This is happening under David Cameron.
Whether or not you feel there are too many people of foreign birth already in the UK is something completely separate. Immigration from abroad to this country IS going down.
Does your chart include illegal immigration? If so, how? Is illegal immigration an issue there (I imagine via people overstaying visas)?
What data is your chart using?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/07 14:21:58
Subject: United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
England should be English, you should definitely be allowed to be so. Well, whilst we're at it...
On the condition that Cornwall gets to be Cornish and we get to throw out every single saxon, roman, norman, viking, angle and anyone else we decide we don't like. Piss off back to your own side of the water!!
They come over the Tamar bridge, take our jobs, move into neighborhoods and push the property prices up and all you can smell off em is jellied eels and kidney pies. Then they breed like rabbits and cover our beautiful beaches with their offspring, set up 'artist colonies' and send their graphic designers and city financiers down to set up badly run ostrich farms or alpaca ranches.
They should learn to speak Cornish is what they should do, immigrant scum have no respect for our traditional values. I used to hear them gibbering away in their filthy mongrel tongue on the bus, if I could stop dry-heaving due to the eel smell long enough that is...
Oh yeah and they bring their invasive and demanding religion as well, Cornwall is a Pagan country and they need to follow traditional Pagan values, not demand we recognize their religion as equal, showing up these few hundred years with their 'one god' nonsense. If they don't like it, they should bugger off home!
KURNOW BYS VYKEN!
The Cornish can be Cornish if they have the force to take their freedom from the English government, certainly. That is unlikely though, my dad has been an avid supporter of Cornish nationalism for decades and I am well aware of its middle class Islington roots
You're funny, English.
You should go to The Swordfish in Newlyn and explain your wit to the lads there, perhaps on landing day. See how your humor enables you to enjoy the comfort of a beam trawl view of the open Atlantic.
Cornwall's nation status roots were set down in the 15th century, at the battle of Deptford Bridge, watered in the blood of the 20,000 fishermen, farmers, miners who marched to peacefully protest their taxation into starvation and were massacred by two English armies. Thereafter one in ten Cornish men, women and children were killed by violence of the English land owners and English army and entire villages cut off and starved to death for disobedience over the rest of that century. Cornwall was a nation unto it's self until the 18th century.
So, you want your mongrel country free of the newest batch of immigrants because of some deluded notion of an 'english people' but would deny my country, annexed by yours, it's own freedom because it lacks the 'force' to break away, I know why you fear the newest batch, they have better suntans than you.
Smacks of fascism to me, your country kept 'pure' but still occupying mine, I think I can gaze into the crystal ball and see just what sort of an 'England' you'd like...
2013/05/07 14:32:52
Subject: Re:United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
reds8n wrote: UKIP councillor for Boston, Lincolnshire...
Well done Boston !
I loved the reaction from the locals. 'I'm not racist but...'.. 'They're taking our jobs...' Stay classy Lincolnshire.
Is it not true that we have a massive youth unemployment in this country though. If Immigration continues with lax controls, does that not make unemployment even worse? Seems common sense no matter how PC it is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/07 14:33:17
2013/05/07 14:47:25
Subject: Re:United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
Is it not true that we have a massive youth unemployment in this country though. If Immigration continues with lax controls, does that not make unemployment even worse? Seems common sense no matter how PC it is.
There are minor effects but lots of other countries in Europe have higher immigration rates and lower youth unemployment rates.
Spoiler:
Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn.
Does immigration create greater unemployment or greater inactivity among existing workers? The first systematic study of this issue used data for 1983-2000 to analyse how changes in the share of migrants impact on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of existing workers (Dustmann, Fabbri and Preston 2005). It concluded that immigration had no statistically significant effect on the overall employment outcomes of UK-born workers. The study did, however, find statistically significant effects on specific educational groups of UK-born workers: immigration was found to have adverse effects on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of UK-born with intermediate education (defined as O level and equivalent) and a positive impact on employment outcomes of UK-born workers with advanced education (A-levels or university degrees).
A separate study carried out by researchers at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) analysed the impact of labour immigration of A8 workers on claimant unemployment during May 2004-November 2005 (Lemos and Portes 2008). The study found little evidence of an adverse effect. There is some evidence to suggest that, just like the impact on wages, the effects of immigration on unemployment differ between the short and long run. An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2003 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years) but has no significant impact in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2007).
Two recent studies have provided additional insights on the impact of immigration on employment in the UK using a time period which includes the latest recession. Lucchino, Rosazza-Bondibene and Portes (2012) used National Insurance Number (NINO) registrations data from 2002 to 2011 to explore the impact of immigration on claimant count rates (i.e. a proxy for unemployment) in 379 local authorities in England. The results suggest that there is no impact of immigration on the claimant count rate. This result holds even during periods of low economic growth or recession.
Research by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) studied the impact of migrants on the employment of UK-born people using data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for 1975-2010 (Migration Advisory Committee 2012). The study suggests that, overall, migrants have no impact on UK-born employment. However, the MAC also analysed the specific impacts of EU and non-EU migrants and also distinguished between two sub-periods: 1975-1994 and 1995-2010. It found that non-EU immigration was associated with a reduction in the employment of UK-born workers during 1995-2010. No statistically significant effects were found for EU immigration. The MAC analysis also suggests that the likelihood of a negative impact of immigration on employment of UK-born workers is likely to be greatest during economic downturns.
There are minor effects but lots of other countries in Europe have higher immigration rates and lower youth unemployment rates.
Then they must not be getting jobs, and going on the brew instead.
Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that our economy is fethed, or that youth employment has effectively been replaced with free labour from the Work Programme. Bear in mind the opposite is also true, there are countries such as Italy which have lower immigration and higher youth unemployment.
2013/05/07 17:59:11
Subject: United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
Does your chart include illegal immigration? If so, how? Is illegal immigration an issue there (I imagine via people overstaying visas)?
What data is your chart using?
As I said earlier, illegal immigration is impossible to gauge (being illegal means it is unrecorded, and unrecordable). So it could be going up or down, with no reliable way of knowing or guessing either way. What I have listed there are the official immigration and migration figures of people entering and leaving the country.
Whilst illegal immigration occurs in any first world nation, you tend to find that the majority of immigration comes from internal EU migration (the Polish for example). Primarily because they can move about unrestricted between EU nations, and so can come here in relatively unlimited numbers. But as a result of that, they are recorded accurately in the figures given earlier.
Well, one can gauge illegal immigration through careful studies. I'm wondering how much illegal immigration you're getting coming from outside the EU but being filtered through there.
Again not making a point, more asking for info.
Ok I agree with the Cornish being traitorous tin merchants. Sounds like a good gig if you can get it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/07 18:31:11
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/07 19:05:31
Subject: United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
sebster wrote:"pseudo-social scientists"? Do you even understand what that means? I mean, are you actually claiming that these people are only pretending to be social scientists?
I'm reminded of that lady who went on a rant on the eve of WWI, talking about those 'so-called Germans'. I mean, whether or not you liked them they were German...
To be fair to the woman on the even of WWI, she may have been very old and simply remembered it more as being the Prussian-dominated German Confederation, and hence: "so-called Germans". I suppose that would be akin to saying "It'll always be Burma to me". On the other hand, I've got absolutely no explanation for what a "pseudo-social scientist" is.
And Bryllcream, I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions. They were asked honestly of you.
2013/05/07 22:12:25
Subject: Re:United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
reds8n wrote: UKIP councillor for Boston, Lincolnshire...
Well done Boston !
I loved the reaction from the locals. 'I'm not racist but...'.. 'They're taking our jobs...' Stay classy Lincolnshire.
Is it not true that we have a massive youth unemployment in this country though. If Immigration continues with lax controls, does that not make unemployment even worse? Seems common sense no matter how PC it is.
It's not racist at all. Immigration from Eastern Europe is the cause of youth unemployment for this country, I don't see how that can be contested.
Do you think factories would simply stand idle and not bother advertising for vacancies if there were no immigrants? Do you think fields would lie fallow? Immigrants will simply work worse conditions for lower pay, the only people who profit from that are the owners.
Bryllcream, as a Canadian, I'm lacking the understanding of some context here, I'm afraid, but I'm legitimately curious as to what your operational definition of "English" is, in the context of culture. I think I have a vague notion of what you're implying, but I'm not entirely certain, and before engaging with this conversation I'd appreciate being correctly informed as to exactly what you consider "English culture" to be.
The culture of the English people. I can't really explain it, if you came here for a few weeks I could show you the mannerisms, the language, the attitudes of the English people, then perhaps you'd see how it contrasts so starkly with the hundreds of thousands of people who also live in our cities.
How do the politicians know what the beliefs of the people who vote for them are, unless they hold focus groups and surveys?
This is an honest question; please let me know what your answer is.
By being from those communities. 30 years ago, most Labour MPs were from a working class background, usually trade unionists. They *were* the people that they were there to represent, there was never any real question of that. Contrast to today where virtually all MPs, of all parties (the Conservatives are just as distant from their base, just look at the socially liberal policies advocated by the Conservative leadership, as opposed to what David Davies is saying), are simply university graduates who've gone into politics professionally, usually by working as researchers or aides in parliament. Those guys don't know jack gak about how the man in the street thinks or feels, all they know is the polls.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/07 22:18:14
Naaa na na na-na-na-naaa.
Na-na-na-naaaaa.
Hey Jude.
0033/05/11 22:26:09
Subject: Re:United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
Do you think factories would simply stand idle and not bother advertising for vacancies if there were no immigrants? Do you think fields would lie fallow? Immigrants will simply work worse conditions for lower pay, the only people who profit from that are the owners.
There is actually another fairly well documented contributory factor to youth unemployment. I'm not saying its the only one, but it does affect what you just said above, with regards to immigrants, 'stealing owr jerbs'.
Simply put, nice white english boys often do not wish to soil their hands with work that they consider beneath them. Picking fruit, cleaning toilets, sorting recyclables from refuse, etc, etc. There are many jobs that are long and physically strenous with little potential for advancement and minimum pay.
But the average english 18 year old usually does not want to apply for jobs like these. They'd rather earn two hundred and twenty pounds a month and have their rent paid for them on the dole, than make three hundred and pay their rent themselves doing a dirty or tiring job.
And I'm going to be honest, I don't blame them. I'd rather sit on the dole in a situation like that too, and hope for something better.
There's also the fact that since something like 40% of young adults are graduates when they hit the work market now, there aren't enough graduate jobs for all of them. Having your degree in Philosophy from Roehampton University isn't worth the paper its printed on, but having got it, you feel that you should have something better than a job at Mcdonalds lined up. So you don't apply to the manky jobs.
Meanwhile, Mr townie boy of the same age who got a BTEC in mechanical admin and then took an apprenticeship, is rolling in potential job offers. And he's not so vastly in debt to boot.
2013/05/07 23:15:51
Subject: Re:United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
Bryllcream, as a Canadian, I'm lacking the understanding of some context here, I'm afraid, but I'm legitimately curious as to what your operational definition of "English" is, in the context of culture. I think I have a vague notion of what you're implying, but I'm not entirely certain, and before engaging with this conversation I'd appreciate being correctly informed as to exactly what you consider "English culture" to be.
The culture of the English people. I can't really explain it, if you came here for a few weeks I could show you the mannerisms, the language, the attitudes of the English people, then perhaps you'd see how it contrasts so starkly with the hundreds of thousands of people who also live in our cities.
Back in the late '90s I spent a few months living in Kingston upon Thames, so while out of date, I think I have some idea of what you're talking about, and it's honestly sounding like a "no true scotsman" issue. But can you give me an example of how an England-born man of pure Norman or Anglo-Saxon descent would differ from an England-born man of Irish descent, or an England-born man of Indian descent, or an England-born man of Jamaican descent?
How do the politicians know what the beliefs of the people who vote for them are, unless they hold focus groups and surveys?
This is an honest question; please let me know what your answer is.
By being from those communities. 30 years ago, most Labour MPs were from a working class background, usually trade unionists. They *were* the people that they were there to represent, there was never any real question of that. Contrast to today where virtually all MPs, of all parties (the Conservatives are just as distant from their base, just look at the socially liberal policies advocated by the Conservative leadership, as opposed to what David Davies is saying), are simply university graduates who've gone into politics professionally, usually by working as researchers or aides in parliament. Those guys don't know jack gak about how the man in the street thinks or feels, all they know is the polls.
So do you mean to say that asking one man in the street is "being informed", but asking 1,000 men in the street is "not knowing jack gak about the man in the street"? I'm not sure that's consistent. Like, what happens if that one man is schizophrenic, but since he's the only person asked, the MPs decided that gangstalking really is something that needs to be addressed?
2013/05/07 23:17:08
Subject: Re:United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
Do you think factories would simply stand idle and not bother advertising for vacancies if there were no immigrants? Do you think fields would lie fallow? Immigrants will simply work worse conditions for lower pay, the only people who profit from that are the owners.
There is actually another fairly well documented contributory factor to youth unemployment. I'm not saying its the only one, but it does affect what you just said above, with regards to immigrants, 'stealing owr jerbs'.
Simply put, nice white english boys often do not wish to soil their hands with work that they consider beneath them. Picking fruit, cleaning toilets, sorting recyclables from refuse, etc, etc. There are many jobs that are long and physically strenous with little potential for advancement and minimum pay.
But the average english 18 year old usually does not want to apply for jobs like these. They'd rather earn two hundred and twenty pounds a month and have their rent paid for them on the dole, than make three hundred and pay their rent themselves doing a dirty or tiring job.
And I'm going to be honest, I don't blame them. I'd rather sit on the dole in a situation like that too, and hope for something better.
40 hours of minimum wage gets you 40*£6.19 an hour, £247 a week. Unemployment benefit is £55 a week. Which of those figures do you think is higher? It's simply a myth that it doesn't pay to work, and young people really, really want jobs - but many of the jobs that unskilled young people traditionally did are now filled by immigrants, the exception being retail where lack of good English skills is a bar to employment.
Naaa na na na-na-na-naaa.
Na-na-na-naaaaa.
Hey Jude.
2013/05/07 23:29:23
Subject: Re:United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
40 hours of minimum wage gets you 40*£6.19 an hour, £247 a week. Unemployment benefit is £55 a week. Which of those figures do you think is higher?
Actually, you tend to find that on minimum wage, you earn little more then you do sitting on the dole. I know that as a fact, as I was in that position not so long ago. I'll extrapolate for you.
On minimum wage working your forty hour week, I pull in roughly one thousand pounds a month compared to the doles Two twenty. Compared at that most basic level, working seems like a total no brainer, right?
But then, you deduct national insurance. Then tax. Then your rent (which in London is usually about six hundred minimum). Your commuting costs. Any dental or prescription costs. Then your council tax. And so on.
By the time you've finished all those deductions, you tend to find that you're actually barely better off than being on the dole (usually to the tune of about fifty to a hundred pounds).
If you've got a nice middle class mummy and daddy you're living with to front all the costs, you're fine. But if your parents are in receipt of benefits and you start working, you're classed as a non-dependent, and your family's housing benefit and council tax breaks are slashed quite harshly as a result, so you end up paying almost as much as you would if you were living separately.
Now if its a decent enough job, and has either perks or potential for advancement, most people will happily do it.
But clean toilets for forty hours a week and be fifty quid better off, or sit and play xbox on the dole? It's a no brainer really for most young people.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/07 23:30:52
2013/05/07 23:33:30
Subject: United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
Wait, what? Housing benfit is paid regardless of employment status. I think being unemployed actually makes you less likely to get it, though I can't be sure.
But I do enjoy watching you explain how £55 and £250 are actually the same
Naaa na na na-na-na-naaa.
Na-na-na-naaaaa.
Hey Jude.
2013/05/07 23:38:56
Subject: United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
BryllCream wrote: Wait, what? Housing benfit is paid regardless of employment status. I think being unemployed actually makes you less likely to get it, though I can't be sure.
But I do enjoy watching you explain how £55 and £250 are actually the same
Housing benefit is paid relative to your earning capacity and your location. If you earn over a certain amount per month, you are deemed to be capable of paying your own rent, and left to fend for yourself accordingly.
I was in that position for several months less than a year ago, so I'm really quite intrigued as to how I was imagining the difference in my bank balance. Please go into more detail, so I can see where my bank was no doubt siphoning off the money.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/07 23:40:45
2013/05/08 00:23:27
Subject: Re:United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory
reds8n wrote: UKIP councillor for Boston, Lincolnshire...
Well done Boston !
I loved the reaction from the locals. 'I'm not racist but...'.. 'They're taking our jobs...' Stay classy Lincolnshire.
Is it not true that we have a massive youth unemployment in this country though. If Immigration continues with lax controls, does that not make unemployment even worse? Seems common sense no matter how PC it is.
It's not racist at all. Immigration from Eastern Europe is the cause of youth unemployment for this country, I don't see how that can be contested.
Do you think factories would simply stand idle and not bother advertising for vacancies if there were no immigrants? Do you think fields would lie fallow? Immigrants will simply work worse conditions for lower pay, the only people who profit from that are the owners.
At best you can prove correlation. You will find it very difficult if not impossible to prove that eastern Europeans are taking jobs away from young people.
You would need to prove they apply for the same jobs, not just jobs in general, and that the eastern Europeans are somehow more likely to get hired.
Otherwise you are at best left with circumstantial evidence that immigrants take jobs away from citizens.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
It's not racist at all. Immigration from Eastern Europe is the cause of youth unemployment for this country, I don't see how that can be contested.
It take it you didn't bother reading my posts earlier in the page, so I will do you the service of restating the facts.
The are countries in Europe with higher immigration and lower youth unemployment, there are also countries in Europe with lower immigration and higher youth unemployment.
Spoiler:
Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn.
Does immigration create greater unemployment or greater inactivity among existing workers? The first systematic study of this issue used data for 1983-2000 to analyse how changes in the share of migrants impact on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of existing workers (Dustmann, Fabbri and Preston 2005). It concluded that immigration had no statistically significant effect on the overall employment outcomes of UK-born workers. The study did, however, find statistically significant effects on specific educational groups of UK-born workers: immigration was found to have adverse effects on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of UK-born with intermediate education (defined as O level and equivalent) and a positive impact on employment outcomes of UK-born workers with advanced education (A-levels or university degrees).
A separate study carried out by researchers at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) analysed the impact of labour immigration of A8 workers on claimant unemployment during May 2004-November 2005 (Lemos and Portes 2008). The study found little evidence of an adverse effect. There is some evidence to suggest that, just like the impact on wages, the effects of immigration on unemployment differ between the short and long run. An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2003 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years) but has no significant impact in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2007).
Two recent studies have provided additional insights on the impact of immigration on employment in the UK using a time period which includes the latest recession. Lucchino, Rosazza-Bondibene and Portes (2012) used National Insurance Number (NINO) registrations data from 2002 to 2011 to explore the impact of immigration on claimant count rates (i.e. a proxy for unemployment) in 379 local authorities in England. The results suggest that there is no impact of immigration on the claimant count rate. This result holds even during periods of low economic growth or recession.
Research by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) studied the impact of migrants on the employment of UK-born people using data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for 1975-2010 (Migration Advisory Committee 2012). The study suggests that, overall, migrants have no impact on UK-born employment. However, the MAC also analysed the specific impacts of EU and non-EU migrants and also distinguished between two sub-periods: 1975-1994 and 1995-2010. It found that non-EU immigration was associated with a reduction in the employment of UK-born workers during 1995-2010. No statistically significant effects were found for EU immigration. The MAC analysis also suggests that the likelihood of a negative impact of immigration on employment of UK-born workers is likely to be greatest during economic downturns.
BryllCream wrote: Wait, what? Housing benfit is paid regardless of employment status. I think being unemployed actually makes you less likely to get it, though I can't be sure.
But I do enjoy watching you explain how £55 and £250 are actually the same
Housing benefit is paid relative to your earning capacity and your location. If you earn over a certain amount per month, you are deemed to be capable of paying your own rent, and left to fend for yourself accordingly.
I was in that position for several months less than a year ago, so I'm really quite intrigued as to how I was imagining the difference in my bank balance. Please go into more detail, so I can see where my bank was no doubt siphoning off the money.
Housing benefit is more or less impossible to get around here so I assumed it was the same throughout the country.
Even if you account for it, you're far better off earning a wage than not - most unemployed young people are not living by themselves and claiming housing benefit, they're living at home.
It's not racist at all. Immigration from Eastern Europe is the cause of youth unemployment for this country, I don't see how that can be contested.
It take it you didn't bother reading my posts earlier in the page, so I will do you the service of restating the facts.
The are countries in Europe with higher immigration and lower youth unemployment, there are also countries in Europe with lower immigration and higher youth unemployment.
Spoiler:
Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn.
Does immigration create greater unemployment or greater inactivity among existing workers? The first systematic study of this issue used data for 1983-2000 to analyse how changes in the share of migrants impact on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of existing workers (Dustmann, Fabbri and Preston 2005). It concluded that immigration had no statistically significant effect on the overall employment outcomes of UK-born workers. The study did, however, find statistically significant effects on specific educational groups of UK-born workers: immigration was found to have adverse effects on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of UK-born with intermediate education (defined as O level and equivalent) and a positive impact on employment outcomes of UK-born workers with advanced education (A-levels or university degrees).
A separate study carried out by researchers at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) analysed the impact of labour immigration of A8 workers on claimant unemployment during May 2004-November 2005 (Lemos and Portes 2008). The study found little evidence of an adverse effect. There is some evidence to suggest that, just like the impact on wages, the effects of immigration on unemployment differ between the short and long run. An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2003 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years) but has no significant impact in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2007).
Two recent studies have provided additional insights on the impact of immigration on employment in the UK using a time period which includes the latest recession. Lucchino, Rosazza-Bondibene and Portes (2012) used National Insurance Number (NINO) registrations data from 2002 to 2011 to explore the impact of immigration on claimant count rates (i.e. a proxy for unemployment) in 379 local authorities in England. The results suggest that there is no impact of immigration on the claimant count rate. This result holds even during periods of low economic growth or recession.
Research by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) studied the impact of migrants on the employment of UK-born people using data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for 1975-2010 (Migration Advisory Committee 2012). The study suggests that, overall, migrants have no impact on UK-born employment. However, the MAC also analysed the specific impacts of EU and non-EU migrants and also distinguished between two sub-periods: 1975-1994 and 1995-2010. It found that non-EU immigration was associated with a reduction in the employment of UK-born workers during 1995-2010. No statistically significant effects were found for EU immigration. The MAC analysis also suggests that the likelihood of a negative impact of immigration on employment of UK-born workers is likely to be greatest during economic downturns.
That's irrelevent. I say again, if immigrants were to randomly up and leave, do you think that factories wouldn't advertise vacancies and have them filled by young English people?
