385,000 Young Workers from Eastern Europe
Comments
-
Don't live in the south east do you....
how is it comparitevly to other European countries?
The fact that the urban area in percentage terms is small, as it will be in but micro states and very small countries, is justification for letting unlimited people, who have different values, who there is no work for, many of who will not work, fine lets do that. I can see with my own eyes the spread if London the spread if towns and villages in the home counties.0 -
Slowmart wrote:the playing mantis wrote:In seriousness though, they may be mire motivated to learn maths, but that's not the point. If we can shift the feckless natives in some kind if exchange program id have no issue really. The issue is population growth, and all the associated issues that brings, that are magnified in an already densely populated island.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o ... on_density
The facts speak differently.
Well 53rd we're pretty well up the list.
There's a lot of the EU with a lot more space than the UK.0 -
Ah.......the playing mantis wrote:Don't live in the south east do you.....
But that's your choice to live there.
As it is my choice not to.
If you don't like it........None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
MattC59 wrote:I've got some landscaping needs doing in Thatcham, that many of them should get it done in a couple of hours !
Typical. How long into this thread was it going to be before someone blamed....oh, sorry, Thatcham.
David"It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal0 -
Look lets just agree to put the chingford skinhead in charge in some sort of supersonic, little bit of wee, wet dream inducing alliance with big nige, we would be a lot better off.0
-
Immigration seems to be one of those policies that crosses the left to right of politics. It's favoured by the Left but those most affected by it are it's traditional core voters, hence Gordon Brown's confrontation on that election campaign. Also the biggest benefactors are employers, I'm thinking right-leaning big businesses, who can look forward to their labour costs being driven down as a result of more people looking for a job.0
-
the playing mantis wrote:Look lets just agree to put the chingford skinhead in charge in some sort of supersonic, little bit of wee, wet dream inducing alliance with big nige, we would be a lot better off.
Who would Nige use then to create fear and loathing to self propel himself once he has stopped migration?
Unfortunately the lack of credible politicians leave most people switched off to politics which actually plays into the hands of twats like Nige and his supporters.“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
it doesn't matter how much or little of the uk is urban, built on or natural countryside....we have not got enough infrastructure to support unlimited migration, nor the skilled doctors, teachers etc to look after everyone at present, let alone another influx and things are set to get worse TPM, as immigrant birth rates are soaring.0
-
the playing mantis wrote:No sh it... And why have they done nothing to even attempt to extricate from or amend the terms of the relevant treaties/clauses? Why did the gov not take measures thsy they could have within eu law, to restrict the take on of people from the newly acceded states?
Don't know. Why don't you go and ask them?the playing mantis wrote:Labour didn't admit allowing such immigration as a means of social engineering did they...
I don't know. Did they?0 -
Get rid of the immigrants then go to hospital - you'll find there's no staff, especially in the South East. When I was at school 30+ yrs ago there were only about a third of my class whose grandparents were all British. The EU has created greater mobility, but it's not a new problem/issue. Anyone who comes to this country and works is contributing to the growth of GDP, ie the value of the work done in the country as a whole.0
-
Only an ideological extremist would say get rid of all migrants, nobody on this thread has. At the same time does anyone think we should allow completely unfettered immigration into the UK ?
So in fact we only doffer as to the degree of immigration controls we favour. Yet those that favour slightly more controls are often labelled right wing xenophobes - it seems a little unfair.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
johnfinch wrote:the playing mantis wrote:No sh it... And why have they done nothing to even attempt to extricate from or amend the terms of the relevant treaties/clauses? Why did the gov not take measures thsy they could have within eu law, to restrict the take on of people from the newly acceded states?
Don't know. Why don't you go and ask them?the playing mantis wrote:Labour didn't admit allowing such immigration as a means of social engineering did they...
I don't know. Did they?
well considering they've stated as much...or should we just ignore that as people with an axe to grind...0 -
mrfpb wrote:Get rid of the immigrants then go to hospital - you'll find there's no staff, especially in the South East. When I was at school 30+ yrs ago there were only about a third of my class whose grandparents were all British. The EU has created greater mobility, but it's not a new problem/issue. Anyone who comes to this country and works is contributing to the growth of GDP, ie the value of the work done in the country as a whole.
missing the point. if we need nurses, drs etc let em in. if we dont dont.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Only an ideological extremist would say get rid of all migrants, nobody on this thread has. At the same time does anyone think we should allow completely unfettered immigration into the UK ?
So in fact we only doffer as to the degree of immigration controls we favour. Yet those that favour slightly more controls are often labelled right wing xenophobes - it seems a little unfair.
yes i think certain posters on here advocate the latter, wheras no one has suggested the former as migrants in manageable, intergratable numbers, that the infrastructure and skills shortages can absorb are a benefit.0 -
the playing mantis wrote:johnfinch wrote:the playing mantis wrote:No sh it... And why have they done nothing to even attempt to extricate from or amend the terms of the relevant treaties/clauses? Why did the gov not take measures thsy they could have within eu law, to restrict the take on of people from the newly acceded states?
Don't know. Why don't you go and ask them?the playing mantis wrote:Labour didn't admit allowing such immigration as a means of social engineering did they...
I don't know. Did they?
well considering they've stated as much...or should we just ignore that as people with an axe to grind...
I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just genuinely unaware of them stating any such thing. Could you tell me who said it and when, please? Links would be nice.0 -
That's not the Labour party admitting anything though. That's one man expressing his opinion, and making it quite clear that multiculturalism would be a consequence, but not the actual motivation for mass immigration, which was for the workforce. He may have been right or wrong (note that he only said that was the impression he came away with, not that anyone had used those words), but that's not the same thing as a party admission.
FWIW, I think that a more likely explanation was the need for cheap labour to keep up Britain's economic boom. If Labour had really wanted to do some left-wing social engineering, then the worst way in which they could have done that would be to invite in millions of people from countries in which xenophobia and homophobia are rife.0 -
2nd link.0
-
Read it. All it says is that the government had some unspecified economic and social objectives. Well, of course they do. All governments do with policies. We still don't know what those objectives were though. As I say, we've only had one man's take on it, and even he never claimed that social change was the main motivation for opening the borders, and has dismissed the right-wing media's interpretation of his words.0
-
Going on a bit of a tangent, when I was working in Hungary back in 2005, I had a Bulgarian colleague and he told me that even back then, it was really easy for Bulgarians to come to Britain and find work. He didn't know a single person who had applied for a visa and been turned down, so were here legally and paying taxes. He also told me that he knew of a lot more Bulgarians who had moved to other western European countries without the relevant papers and were working on the black market, not paying taxes and undercutting wages even more than happens here.
If it really is as simple as he says, then I don't thing that these people getting automatic right to move here will make that much of a difference, but I could be wrong. My crystal ball's been malfunctioning as of late.0 -
a small article in the FT recently pointed out that Britain, of the countries in Europe, has the highest number of emigrants going abroad to live (world wide), 800,000 in Spain and 400,000 in France alone. Some of them not too nice, think of the criminals in Spain. Almost 1 in 10 UK pensioners living abroad in 2009. So it's a bit of a 2 way street.0
-
^ Not really, as a lot of those going abroad will be spending money (pensioners etc), or as skilled labour (thus again contributing to the economy), rather than coming in as cheap labour, being subsidised by the govt, etc. Plus from what I last saw, the "net" migration into the UK is around 250k p.a., so not remotely a two way street.0
-
so those pensioners will not be drawing on the health care system in their new countries of residence? I think immigrants to the UK might also spend a bit of money once in a while. Labour adds to the economy whether it is skilled or manual, might not the host countires then complain about our skilled exports taking all the good jobs?0
-
Not sure which side of the political spectrum this org lies on but interesting:
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u ... -migration
Employers’ incentives and business and recruitment strategies are critically influenced, and in many ways constrained, by the wider institutional and regulatory framework that is created by public policies. Public policies have often incentivised employers in some sectors and occupations to respond to shortages through the employment of migrant workers. The UK has long emphasised labour market flexibility and relatively low levels of labour regulation. Together with a range of policies from training to housing, this stance has contributed to creating a growing demand for migrant workers.
For example, in the construction sector the difficulty of finding suitably skilled British workers is critically related to low levels of labour market regulation and the absence of a comprehensive vocational education and training system (Chan, Clarke and Dainty 2010). Social care is another sector where public policies have created and increasing demand for migrant workers (Moriarty 2010; Cangiano et al. 2009). Two thirds of care assistants in London are migrants. The shortages of social care workers and care assistants are largely due to low wages and poor working conditions. Most social care in the UK is publically funded, but actually provided by the private sector and voluntary organisations. Constraints in local authority budgets have contributed to chronic underinvestment. Together with the structure of the care sector itself, this approach has resulted in a growing demand for low-waged, flexible workers which, in turn, has led to a growing demand for migrant labour.
The implication is that labour immigration from the EU could be reduced by changes to the public policies and institutions that have contributed to a growing demand for migrant labour. These policy changes include, for example, more and better training of British workers (e.g. in sectors like construction where the lack of a comprehensive training system fuels the demand for experienced East European migrant labour), changes in welfare policies to encourage more British workers to join the workforce (something the government has already begun to do), and better wages and conditions in some low waged public sector jobs.
In the short- to medium term, these changes are unlikely because of the economic downturn and budget cuts - which may well, in fact, increase demand for migrants in low-waged sectors such as social care. But the fundamental point remains that the government might be able to reduce the demand for migrant labour through a range of labour market policies.0 -
"might not the host countries then complain about our skilled exports taking all the good jobs?"
No, as (a) it's unlikely they'll be there to undercut local skilled labour, and (b) they'll be paying good taxes. Overall they'll be contributing to the economy in which they live. I'm not saying that immigrants don't contribute etc, of course they do. I'm saying you can't really compare those leaving with those arriving, as in many cases those arriving will tend to be moving here to "start over", meaning at the bottom of the ladder and thus will be more prone to claiming benefits or otherwise being subsidised by the taxpayers (huge immigrant families etc), as opposed to those leaving the UK who will tend to draw less on their host country's resources vs what they put in.0 -
kieranb wrote:a small article in the FT recently pointed out that Britain, of the countries in Europe, has the highest number of emigrants going abroad to live (world wide), 800,000 in Spain and 400,000 in France alone. Some of them not too nice, think of the criminals in Spain. Almost 1 in 10 UK pensioners living abroad in 2009. So it's a bit of a 2 way street.
Yet population growth continues to rise, so it diesnt balance at all.0 -
kieranb wrote:so those pensioners will not be drawing on the healthare system in their new countries of residence? I think immigrants to the UK might also spend a bit of money once in a while. Labour adds to the economy whether it is skilled or manual, might not the host countires then complain about our skilled exports taking all the good jobs?
No they won't. Universal healthcare isn't present in lots of places.
Im sure there are loads if ex pats in skilled jobs in eastern Europe.....0 -
NO! Educate and train our own people.the playing mantis wrote:mrfpb wrote:Get rid of the immigrants then go to hospital - you'll find there's no staff, especially in the South East. When I was at school 30+ yrs ago there were only about a third of my class whose grandparents were all British. The EU has created greater mobility, but it's not a new problem/issue. Anyone who comes to this country and works is contributing to the growth of GDP, ie the value of the work done in the country as a whole.
missing the point. if we need nurses, drs etc let em in. if we dont dont.
Jobs going, people unemployed. There should be more forward planning..........Not too much to ask surely!!!!!Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
the playing mantis wrote:kieranb wrote:a small article in the FT recently pointed out that Britain, of the countries in Europe, has the highest number of emigrants going abroad to live (world wide), 800,000 in Spain and 400,000 in France alone. Some of them not too nice, think of the criminals in Spain. Almost 1 in 10 UK pensioners living abroad in 2009. So it's a bit of a 2 way street.
Yet population growth continues to rise, so it diesnt balance at all.
Well the population will rise when births exceed deaths by 250,000 per year. At least immigrants coming in at working age can contribute unlike newborn kids and ageing adults 0
