@pppolitics: CLACTON MP CARSWELL DEFECTS TO #UKIP - odds on to win the by election & return 1st UKIP MP to Westminster - 4/6 UKIP, 11/10 Tories

fair odds for a bet on UKIP getting zero seats next year?

Betfair trading at 4/1

By next year or in the election next year, cause odds look pretty good UKIP will win the by election.

That's general election

Questions to the Prime Minister: September 3rd, 2014

Questions to the Prime Minister - 10/15/14

I am surprised you didnt bump the thread when the UKIPs got an MP to defect who then won his seat in a by election.

Yeah, that is pretty cool, I'm hoping this builds some momentum into getting more seats than the Lib Dems however unlikely that may seem. It's too bad UKIP is soo disliked. I've read that voters will actually vote strategically against them.

Arent you conservative? If so UKIP building momentum is bad, Labour is the party that gains not the Conservative Party who lose power and not UKIP who wont get the referendum on leaving Europe which is their entire raison d'etre. No small c conservative should want the Labour party in power of Britain (nor should any centrist, but that is a different discussion).

Also it pisses me off no end that an openly prejudiced far right party has an MP because people are too stupid to understand immigration and politicians are too stupid to be able to educate them better on how immigration is wholly positive with no downside for the country.

I mean seriously how can you live in a country which has completely open borders to every EU country including Greece and Spain who are going through terrible economic times and not realise that not all immigrants will come to Britain even if it were possible. A year ago UKIP were scaremongering about literally every Bulgarian coming here and I to date have never even met a Bulgarian.

The funny thing is when you poll people about which immigrants they hate it turns out to be the mythical ones that dont exist. ****ing idiots.

I wouldn't say immigration has no downsides. More low skilled workers in a country probably leads to more economic productivity as a whole but for the people making close to minimum wage, it only creates more competition for jobs and wages and burdens the welfare state. I also don't think it's helpful if immigrants congregate too much in certain areas and adapt to the country they are living with. For example, the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal and the extremism of certain Muslims within the country.

I think the quality of the individuals immigrating to your country is what matters and staying within the EU, England has much less control with whom and how many it can restrict. I think immigration is good but why have limitless immigration from the continent and then have to limit immigrants from other parts of the world as a result? Why not take the same amount of immigrants but restrict it to the smartest and brightest from all over the world?

I agree that UKIP's growth hurts the Tories more than Labor but I think to some extent they are a protest vote to the two major parties somewhat like the Lib Dems were in the last General election. I think the Conservatives will win the next general even though they are leading the polls due to the public not wanting Ed Milliband to be their PM.

This is what I mean about ignorance and being afraid of mythical immigrants that dont exist. The Rotherham case and the extremists such as the 7/7 bombers were British! It is racism that because someone is white they are "not British" which is causing most of the problems with immigration.

Britain would be able to take the best and brightest from all over the world if there were no cap on migrants. That is the point! Immigration caps are not effective.

The welfare system needs immigrants, if it wasnt for immigrants the NHS, which voters see as the number one or number two issue every single election, would grind to a hault in fact.

Competition for jobs in the min wage is a myth. Every single immigrant in Europe including Bulgaria, Romania and Poland can travel to Britain tomorrow to apply for a min wage job. They dont. Min wage jobs dont attract migrants who nearly all get paid above min wage (often significantly so for low skill work like construction). Also if you are born in Britain and cant compete against a Romanian when it comes to flipping burgers or scanning barcodes I have zero sympathy.

The reality of course is that more immigration creates more jobs - the people who would "compete" are in fact being harmed by the job they could have not existing today.

Whilst I agree with some of your sentiments (much of the debate on immigration has a paranoid, xenophobic flavour), there is a real issue with working conditions for natives and it is, in part, fuelled by largely unregulated immigration. In not setting enough criteria for migrant workers, in terms of skill level and so on, we are open to waves of people who are desperate to earn money. The problem arises when these people wilfully work in poor conditions, accept low wages (sometimes below minimum wage), zero hour contracts, or the other extreme, long, borderline illegal working hours. Such people are happy to take on this kind of work because the pound has a greater currency value than that of their native country, or because there are really poor employment prospects in their native country.

Having a fluid labour market (for lower paid jobs particularly) now seems to go hand in hand with reduced powers of unions. I personally know of many people who are first and second generation immigrants who work for pittance, sometimes illegally and are simultaneously on benefits. I am persuaded by the arguments that proper controls in place to help regulate the labour market would reduce exploitation. The more people who are desperate to take on such work, the less pressure such companies are likely to experience in the realm of improving working standards.

Increasingly we see that wages are being driven down and people have less power and influence on big business. Companies like McDonald's can conduct interview days, take people on for free for a couple of weeks and dispose of those who are surplus to requirements, such is the volume of their applications.

You say you have no sympathy for those who are British and cannot compete with low or unskilled non-native workers, your sympathy is irrelevant. At some point, someone in this system will be displaced. It is important for those with little to no skills to work safely and securely and attract a wage that is sufficient for sustainable living. These people do not deserve disdain or disregard. If, on the whole, working class Britons are subject to increased competition for jobs that were formerly easy to secure, there will be a negative social impact, an increase in people on welfare, and many of the health problems associated with poor job security and adverse working conditions.

Low wage workers dont get displaced by migrants. They have jobs created by migrants growing the economy.

You say you have no sympathy for those who are British and cannot compete with low or unskilled non-native workers, your sympathy is irrelevant. At some point, someone in this system will be displaced.


When I said that I was trying to make the point that in our current system, 100% employment is an impossibility and that sneering at someone who cannot compete with least skilled workers doesn't address the reality that they will most probably be unable to secure work - this has severe social implications for that individual and I don't like to see such people being dismissed as if they don't matter.

If you do not regulate the labour market you will inevitably encourage a significant amount of people as I described in my previous post, those who are willing to accept poor working conditions for low pay as it is more economically viable than working in their native country. If such workers flood the market, you increase the competition at these lower levels. There is a real issue with disproportionately high poverty rates (relative to the UK) among ethnic minority and migrant worker communities. These issues affect the ability of such workers to integrate into a wider British society.

You speak about job creation but what about wealth creation? This is really the issue I am speaking about. I don't feel encouraged when I hear about employment rising, that's only one part of the picture, I want to know that people are working in good conditions for good pay - allowing them to have sufficient disposable income. That is the ideal, I don't want to see millions more people being forced into low-paying work in poor conditions, sadly that is the reality today.

Immigration which is regulated is undoubtedly positive for GDP, my point was that wealth creation among lower level skilled and unskilled workers is impeded by uncontrolled immigration. These people experience wage depression.

Unregulated immigration wouldn't be an issue if there was 'trickle down'. Our economy is growing in a way where wealth is increasingly unevenly distributed, where living standards and working conditions are driven down for ordinary, working people. Why is it that with our ballooning population, and "record levels of employment" income tax targets are set to be missed this year, especially if migrants creating jobs negates the issue I raised?

I like all people. I have as much feeling for the Romanian who could take the job as the inferior Brit who would otherwise be hired. I have no stronger ties to the stranger born in this country as a stranger who was born in another country but wants to be here.

I dont agree with DS on everything but his bit on immigration is spot on:

I watched the video, I know you weren't alluding to this but I'd like to say that I am so far away from that kind of discourse that is parodied in the video. Equally the grievances parodied in that video are not in any way related to the points I made, but it was entertaining nonetheless. (I'm now desperate for a *** as well, oh dear!).

Objectively native workers of the lower skilled jobs have their wages driven down by this brand of immigration, that is a fact. If you like all people, why not champion a system that protects these workers and one that doesn't promote exploitation?

As for your not having any specific affinity to people based on nationality, fine, fair point. I think however that the key point is our democratic system exists to serve the British people, the merits of a democratic system cannot be undermined by feelings. British people are not more important than other people, but we employ our politicians to serve us, that is the contract. If I go to a fast food joint, pay for a burger and watch as that burger is handed out to someone else, without my consent, I don't get philosophical and say to myself "well they have the same need to eat as I do". There was an arrangement, I pay for something that is to be delivered to me, for my consumption/benefit. In the same vein, whilst I want all people to be able to achieve their goals (within reason), I recruit a government to act in my interest, on my behalf.

The ''inferior brit'' you speak of should be protected or supported; either by regulating the labour market which they would operate in, encouraging their training or by the provision of welfare. The irony is, in your model, the "inferior brit" is effectively ignored by British government in the same way that a low-skilled Romanian would be if they were deemed unqualified to work here. The only difference is the government owes the "inferior brit" its service, the Romanian, not so much.

Over time, I hope I will learn to condense my ideas into short snappy sentences...

On the one hand I'm in favour of stricter immigration but on the other I'm kinda torn as if an immigrant can come and do a better job and I'm paying for a service then I prefer the person who will provide the best service. In the example above, I know it's only a burger bar but would you prefer someone who is surly and hardly looks in your direction serving you or someone with a smile who actually appears to be taking an interest in you? I prefer the latter, no matter their nationality, and obviously I'm stereotyping to a certain extent here but as our economy comes to be more dominated by the service industries there are many in this country who just aren't able to fulfill those roles as well as other nationals. I beleive this to be a cultural issue as we're blighted by poor service in this country that just wouldn't be accepted in many other places.

The problem with "the system exists for the British people" is restricted immigration harms British people directly.

Open immigration benefits the collective whole the most.

Husker, I have no doubt that there are immigrants who can do a better job than many native workers, but you don't want hyper-competition in a job market, you need balance. Plus I don't think we have an issue where our workforce is so under-skilled that this is really an issue. I think the competition comes from the culture of unscrupulous procurement of low wage staff not a desire to have the most highly skilled staff. You want a significant proportion of native people to be able to compete in such a way that they are not likely to be reliant on benefits for the entirety of their lives. The situation we have now is appalling since we have hundreds of applications per post for the lowest paying jobs with the least amount of job security. Perhaps if people were able to work in favourable conditions we would see people being more productive and satisfied by their work. In any case, my belief is that stable regulated immigration wouldn't prevent low skilled workers from entering the market, so again it isn't the issue. The issue is the way in which such workers are introduced.


[Phill] You haven't addressed any of my other points. Are you saying that the wages of low-skilled workers are not driven down by unregulated immigration? Are you saying that migrant workers do not suffer the most by new waves of immigrants? Are you saying that millions of immigrants and ethnic minority groups do not suffer social exclusion and a lack of integration and do not suffer from social issues associated with a disproportionately high level of poverty? These are British/newly British people, who , if these issues do indeed arise, suffer as a result of immigration and the state of the labour market in the UK, particularly in lower band jobs. And there are many ways in which immigration can be regulated, to suggest that any restriction would be harmful is utterly ridiculous.

"Open immigration benefits the collective whole the most" No, there is a slightly net positive effect on the economy, however this is misleading to say the least, as there is a major disparity. Some divisions of the labour market benefit and some suffer, those that suffer are formerly settled migrant workers and those in the lower ends of the wage spectrum. The more you earn, the more you benefit from immigration, why do you think that is? GDP alone is not a sufficient yardstick for a healthy, functional economy. GDP is no reflection on fairness, social inclusion, work satisfaction etc.

So you believe 7,000,000,000 people should be free to migrate to an Island the size of Oregon without restrictions?

Lol you are the dumb one if you think 7 billion people would emigrate to Britain. Yes, up to 7 billion should be allowed to.

You know when the peak immigrants in Britain was? 2007. Well over half a decade before all of Bulgaria and Romania could legally migrate here.

Wages can only be driven down to the min wage line and for most wouldnt be. Most of the time migrants take jobs not because they would do it for less but because they do it better or just plain will do it. Immigrants to Britain (and America fwiw) make above min wage on average. They get the job because they do it better.

I agree there is social exclusion and lack of integration. I blame the older whiter Brits.

There is not a slightly net positive, there is a big positive effect. I am all for fairness, social inclusion, work satisfaction etc. For everyone, not just the lucky few to be born on third and ended up back on first who need protectionist policies to shield them from fundamentally better more worthy people taking what few jobs they can do.

Where did I say that every single person would emigrate to Britain?

You are effectively offering citizenship and free healthcare to every single disease carrier in the third world. How will this improve the UK's standard of living?

In your opinion, what is the maximum population the British Isles would able to comfortably accommodate?

How does the addition of illiterate (74% of global adult population), unskilled and assetless migrants improve the UK economy?

I have said plenty of times before that even the most open borders would need some kind of restrictions with checks for criminal histories and various diseases. This isnt some idea I am just forming today.

I said literally nothing about citizenship. You however were hinting at a massive amount of people migrating here with your 7 billion line.

You are super ridiculously dumb if you think an unskilled illiterate assetless migrant would even get to the UK - but having met plenty of unskilled illiterate assetless potential migrants when I was recently in Asia who were making a living as hard working entrepreneurs doing what they can to survive I am down with them trying if they can get here.

I have literally no idea what the maximum population would be, I know we would never reach it even with open borders. There will always be an equilibrium formed, as proven when the 2007 crash happened and many migrants left the country. If there is no work let alone no place to live people wont migrate to the country.