Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[scorza]

Politicians don't seem to struggle to throw out numbers of immigrants that are going to come here when they are trying to grab headlines, maybe they should share those numbers with other departments?

Problem is that they're always wrong, remember the low tens of thousands of Poles that were supposed to come here in 2001? The most honest of politicians are the ones who say they haven't got a clue how many are going to come next year.

 

[V F]

As above, if utilities, housing and public services can't keep up with a growing population then that is entirely the fault of successive governments inability to plan properly. You don't blame other shoppers when Tesco run out of something you needed.

They did. You don't remember the oil tanker/petrol station/oil plant shutdowns? Bread shelves and all clearing before it took place. Supermarkets couldn't keep up. People complaining soon as it was stocked, it was then cleared.

 

[scorza]

It's the sort of argument there is regarding public services and immigration - health, education, etc. Instead of saying, 'oooo, but those immigrants mean public services are stretched... let's ban them', why not say, 'oooo, but those immigrants mean public services are stretched... they're net contributors to the UK so maybe spend more money and we'll all be better off '?

Literally no-one that I'm aware of has said 'lets ban immigrants', also no-one has come up with a good reason why we can't control immigration.

Oh and the recent back of immigrants to the UK might be net contributors while they're young, healthy and in work, but what happens in 30-40 years time when they're old, retired and in need of medical attention? Assuming they stay of course. All the immigrants from south Asia in the '60s are now a net drain on the UK's public finances, whereas previously they were net contributors too.

 

[Tefal]

So we're not building enough houses, as you said, but instead are building enough if we slash immigration?

Why not still build and deflate the bubble slowly? Why go hard on immigrants when they provide a net contribution to the UK, instead of building homes? How much can we reduce immigration, given our EU commitments aren't going to meaningfully change, and immigration from outside the EU can often be desirable and not something you'd want to block (if a responsible legislator)? How much do you want to cut immigration by, and how much of a reduction in housing need would that result in?

well farage said to meet the demands of immigrants wed need to build a house every 7 minutes, the fact checking on that though seems it a fair underestimate being only 75,000 houses a year at 1 per 7 miniutes.

meaning that level of housing construction would stil lrequire immigrants to be 4 to a house.

 

[Slam62]

The best way to look at this is wages relative to housing costs.
A family on minimum wage cannot afford to even rent a home, a group of eastern Europeans on min wage can if they all share.

I think immigrant workers should pay a health insurance premium, or employers should have to pay a levee.

 

[thep02]

I've asked you to elaborate on the immigration argument. I've asked you to explain how much we can reduce it by, and how much that'd reduce housing demand... but you haven't. I've highlighted the EU migration issue which is that it isn't going to meaningfully change - free movement isn't going to alter widely. I've also asked about non-EU migration, and how much you can reduce that without shooting ourselves in the foot... given non-EU migrants have to fulfil certain criteria and get visas because we want/need them.

Then there's the point about them being net contributors, so shirley it's sensible to take immigrants and build the infrastructure to support them, rather than shooting ourselves in the foot and being anti-net boost to the economy .

Pah! Facts and reasoning anyone can win an argument with facts and reason to back them up, try being a hero and winning arguments based only on feelings and notions like the UKIP squad do, with nothing based in reality to back themselves up except a vague notion that "things" were better in the 1950's when we still had a vestige of Empire left to feel powerful about.

 

[Tefal]

But then you can't stop immigration so that you eliminate that 75 000 need, or whatever it actually is (I'm not saying you're claiming we could, of course). But anyway, you then look at the numbers behind the net immigration figure.



So of the 271 000 people who came here for work, 82% are people we can't stop . So we could arguably eliminate that demand by 18%, right?

Then there are students, but we can't stop EU ones... and non-EU students are big contributors in terms of fees/subsidise our fees, so would we want to stop them?

Etc.

So if the element of demand because of immigration is x, then we take away y and z (if y and z are immigration we can't stop and desirable immigration), what's the leftover additional demand we can and want to eliminate?

well we could stop them if we decide to limit the EU immigration.

its not like the EU would kick us out.

iuf they did they'd collapse we provide like 25% of the funding for the thing.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

David cameron is a toft, and his part is in bed with all the rich for sure that and a paedophile ring.

But UKIP?

LOL

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

We are building enough houses, I don't particularly want to see the countryside built on with identikit Barratt estates. The problem is our demand for housing is rising at an unsustainable rate - controlling immigration is just one of my three suggestions for reducing demand remember.

Something like less than 8% of the UK is built on.

 

[scorza]

Something like less than 8% of the UK is built on.

What percentage of the UK would you like to see built on?

 

[robgmun]

What people don't seem to realise that most of the unbuilt land is farm land and without it we'd far too dependent on other countries for our food.

 

[scorza]

I've asked you to elaborate on the immigration argument. I've asked you to explain how much we can reduce it by, and how much that'd reduce housing demand... but you haven't. I've highlighted the EU migration issue which is that it isn't going to meaningfully change - free movement isn't going to alter widely. I've also asked about non-EU migration, and how much you can reduce that without shooting ourselves in the foot... given non-EU migrants have to fulfil certain criteria and get visas because we want/need them.

Then there's the point about them being net contributors, so shirley it's sensible to take immigrants and build the infrastructure to support them, rather than shooting ourselves in the foot and being anti-net boost to the economy .

We can reduce migration by as much or as little as we want, we can let qualified builders, plumbers, nurses, doctors in, we can stop people coming in if they have a criminal record in their own countries - that's the point, we control it, we don't just open our borders and let all and sundry in. As to the exact level, that'd be up to the strategic decision makers in the Home Office, government and parliament. I'd suggest an initial net immigration target of 40-50k since average net migration prior to 2001 was around that level and didn't cause the same amount of social issues that current levels do.

As I've already told you the 'net contributor' argument is duplicitous and is only valid if you can guarantee that an immigrant will leave the country once they stop being a net contributor. This is how they do it in countries like the UAE which seems quite sensible to me.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

What percentage of the UK would you like to see built on?

1.5% would cure all housing issues and burst the ridiculous bubble. Don't worry though, the uk today had more woodland than ever before, feel free to hug some trees as you're spoilt for choice.

 

[Destination]

Something like less than 8% of the UK is built on.

What is this % in the south east of England?

 

[Caged]

I'd suggest an initial net immigration target of 40-50k since average net migration prior to 2001 was around that level and didn't cause the same amount of social issues that current levels do.

Every single wave of immigration has caused the same issues that we are seeing today, each time greatly exaggerated by certain spectrums of politics and the press.

 

[kitch9]

Obviously way too many immigrants in this country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's an over supply of low skilled labour in this country which the current levels of immigration isn't helping.

I know people try to make out they are net contributers but at what detrimental effect to everyone else? Are they still net contributers once you factor in the downward pressure on wages for everyone?

We'll never know I suppose.

I felt like pulling my hair out when the answer "Just raise the minimum wage" came out at the election debate when this point was raised.

That's not how supply and demand works and will make the issue worse!

 

[scorza]

How are you going to get to the 50k number? We already have more than that coming from outside the EU - they're people who've got visas based on the skills they have and jobs they have lined up. Why would you want to block those people?

Then presumably you're ditching the EU and its free movement provisions? What happens if you can't get out of the EU because the referendum doesn't happen, or does happen and results in a pro-EU membership decision?

Would students be excluded from your target? If not, why stop them, when non-EU students (and EU ones if you left the EU) pay huge fees which help subsidise the education of British students?

It seems you're taking an ideologically motivated position, with arbitrary targets, which seems an odd way to deal with immigration policy. Blocking positive immigration just because it's above a headline figure. Why, if they benefit us, would we block them?

No I'm not having that, this is anything but arbitrary - it is planned migration based on facts such as birth and death rates, house building, employment, planned employments. It's a job for a team of civil servants - they do this in other countries such as Australia and New Zealand so don't pretend this is revolutionary thinking. 40-50k is also fits the Conservative's election pledge to cut immigration to the 'tens of thousands', it's not unreasonable. Yes I'm ditching the EU's free-movement of people clause, it's been a disaster for this country and despite what the eurocrats say, I don't believe there are any sacred cows - we're a sovereign nation and can do what we want.

Why won't you address the fact that for a significant percentage of immigrants, your 'positive immigration' becomes 'negative immigration' once they get old and retire? This is purely in economic terms, let's ignore the social issues surrounding immigration as you've always done in this thread

 

[scorza]

Fancy answering the questions you ignored, or are you refusing to debate in good faith? :\

Why is it down to me to argue in good faith when you've done anything but behave as such throughout this thread.

Edit :: You just ignored any detail where I questioned your target. Such as where I pointed out that the target is already outstripped by immigration under our visa system - a system which isn't exactly lax!

Then students?

Then what happens if you can't get out of the EU? Because as it stands it's far more likely we'll stay within in... and given that's the case, what do you suggest we do about housing provision?

Do we have a quota system at the moment for non-EU immigration? or is it just based on ticking enough boxes and you're in? I'm not particularly aware of any problems with students and immigration, but think that should be always looked at and controlled to make sure there are no abuses like there were in the past.

 

[Caged]

Why won't you address the fact that for a significant percentage of immigrants, your 'positive immigration' becomes 'negative immigration' once they get old and retire?

That is a completely separate issue that affects all pensioners, and which no government seems to want to touch.

If your argument about who we let in and how many is based purely on economics then you need to treat a migrant who has spent their entire working life in the UK paying tax the same as someone born here who has done the same.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

What is this % in the south east of England?

Probably not much different from the rest of the uk?