Caporegime
0.088
Poll: General election voting intentions poll
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
- Status
0.023 for me :/
Soldato
Lucky me: I can choose to vote in a 0.594 constituency or a 0.165 constituency. More candidates in the 0.594 one as well.
I'm still disappointed about that... The size of the majority no vote took me majorly by surprise as it seemed like a much fairer system to me, as well as being on the pathway to further reform in the future.
Last edited:
0.769 here. Very marginal. Hopefully I can get Ed Balls out. I'm undecided as to who. Not really sure who has the best chance of removing him.
Conservatives gone a bit mad campaigning here. Leaflets by them through the door at least once a week. Even two (the same) in the same day ha.
Voting power 2.48x the average.
Conservatives gone a bit mad campaigning here. Leaflets by them through the door at least once a week. Even two (the same) in the same day ha.
Voting power 2.48x the average.
Last edited:
I think you don't understand how GDP is calculated, it ignores costs. Your car analogy is flawed, the following is more accurate:
We need 2 cars to do a job.
We purchased 1 car new.
we can get a second car for free or we can buy a new car.
Getting a second car for free is beneficial. Either way we end up with 2 cars and can produce the same output but we have reduced the costs in doing so. The "GDP per car" is the same in both instances, but one was much cheaper to achieve.
The fact that GDP per capita only has a small positive increase due to immigration just means the British aren't significantly worse at doing the same jobs and the type of job done aren't significantly different. The difference is they do it at much reduced costs, contributing much more tax and using less benefits.
GDP per capita is just a useless measure for immigrant benefits. It doesn't have to significantly increase, as long as it increases total GDP and the benefits outweigh the costs. There are many things that have a fixed cost, e.g. trident, HS2 project. If the GDP is higher then such projects are much more affordable. IF the treasury has more tax in pockets due to immigrants using less benefits then it has more money to do thing like imporve educatio or health, or build new social housing, Whether they will do that or not is another matter!
Last edited:
Soldato
Alas, UKIP and the Conservatives have failed to make a similar arrangement.
Associate
It's hardly worth letting in NON-EU immigrants if that paltry 2% figure is true, especially with the added integration and cultural problems, the 34% figure is hard to argue with though, maybe that's the way to go.
The +2% figure should be seen in reference to the native British which is -11%, and the other costs involved in replacing those non-EU workers.
For example, lets say X thousand of those non-EU immigrants have a special skill/training that British companies need. If these migrants are removed (or more realistically blocked from immigration) in the future) then the UK has to pay the training for X-thousand additional workers in order to do that job. So although may only contribute a little net, it would cost a lot to replace.
Putting that aside, the disparity highlights why controlling EU immigration is ridiculous. Do we want to reduce the fiscal benefits of EU immigration to be the same as Non-EU?
We are already free to control non-EU immigration but don't. So no need to get out of the EU to change that.
Most Conservative voters would much rather have labour than the UKIP.
UKIP voters would get more traction with the BNP I would think, they both share the common ideal of hating anyone different to themselves.
1.002 for me our tory has no chance of holding on, 59% of our votes were useless and most of those went libdem and won't be doing that again, in fact I haven't met any people who intend to vote lib for about 4 years.
Proper full proportional voting is absolutely necessary in this country.
Proper full proportional voting is absolutely necessary in this country.
I just don't understand all this concern over immigration. As DP says it's easy to see that most immigrants will be young individuals and as others have said another country has paid to raise them so they're instantly contributing to the economy in the UK and are likely to require very little in the way of medical/welfare.
If people are feeling that immigration is reducing their wages/living standards/etc then they need to look to voting for a party that will improve working conditions and ensure employers aren't able to abuse their positions. If you're in that situation do you really think that voting for UKIP or the Conservatives will improve things for you? Zero hour contracts, austerity and endless cuts to public services aren't the fault of immigrants!
Do people really believe that if we close our borders that keep ourselves isolated that things will suddenly get better overnight?
If people are feeling that immigration is reducing their wages/living standards/etc then they need to look to voting for a party that will improve working conditions and ensure employers aren't able to abuse their positions. If you're in that situation do you really think that voting for UKIP or the Conservatives will improve things for you? Zero hour contracts, austerity and endless cuts to public services aren't the fault of immigrants!
Do people really believe that if we close our borders that keep ourselves isolated that things will suddenly get better overnight?
It has also been shown that immigrant increase wages for the most part, so even that myth is not based on evidence.
But I agree, there needs to be a change in worker conditions and salary distribution, regardless of whether the UK see a million immigrants or none those problems will still be there.
If the bnp hadn't been racist ****wits and populated by fools i could've voted for them parts of their manifesto were good. That's why they completely failed they were a left wing party but no left winger would ever vote racist, that's what farage realised.
I understand how GDP is calculated I just think you're not getting my argument!
You believe that GDP per a capita should significantly increase with economically beneficial migrant.
That would imply 1 of 2 things, most likely both:
1) Immigrants are significantly more productive than native workers, that some how immigrants are superior in a work-sense than native workers. There is no real proof of this EU migrants are likely to be more highly educated with a greater proportion holding university degrees but that doesn't always translate into higher productivity. The number of British adults that have a degree has increased significantly but the GDP per capita didn't follow to the same rate.
2) There is a highly significant number of such higher-productive migrants that can greatly shift the average of the native workers. There simply is not enough immigration to see this happen. Immigration in the UK is at very low level compared to other developed countries, perhaps if we encouraged immigration and double or tripped the immigration rate then there might be an increase in per capita GDP if #1 above holds true.
As I said GDP per capita is not a very relevant metric. What is important is the GDP per capita doesn't decrease significantly. Immigrants use less benefits and so cost the economy less, so we get a cheaper workforce. They may be no more productive than native workers but their net contribution is higher. You wont see than in GDP per a capita, you will see that in increased gross GDP and more money in the treasury. If the government misuse that money then you wont see an increase in GDP per capita.
Indeed, many BNP polices are fantastic, as you say they are left wing party run by a bunch of racist nutters. The UKIP is just the right wing equivalent in suits and ties.
There was a recent Poll that showed that 28% of UKIP voters claim to be racists and 48% are "racial prejudiced", i.e. racist but don't admit to it. And yet somehow some UKIP supporters question why others think the UKIP is racist, well, half the damn voters think they are racist for a start.
- Status