Indeed the current view expressed by ONS (very heavily caveated with the words provisional & experimental) is that net migration into the UK is the figure @LDF uses. This number includes ALL inward migration whether short or long term e.g. Ukrainian refugees, international students, people coming on Visa's for short term work placements, as well as those intending to make their home here; as well as ALL outward migration such as EU citizens returning home.
Asylum seekers, who the government appear to be attempting to criminalise in contravention of international law as well as scapegoat for most of our ills constitute less than 8% of the current net migration figure.
Fear of immigration is such an irrational thing for a country that is so awash with diverse cultures. The people shouting loudest about the terrifying masses coming to our shores are also supporters of the very people in charge of making such a fuck up of their controlled arrival. Our economy would be far better off with these people in our system earning and paying into the country than marginalising and demonising them.
I'd like to reiterate that I am not for demonising or marginalising anyone. I still think immigration is out of hand. The 'Singapore model' for Britain, envisaged by some capitalists and neo- liberals is a nightmare scenario for me.
According to this, the net migration rate to the UK is the lowest for over 20 years. That hardly seems "out of hand" to me. Balance that to the high vacancy levels and skills shortages we currently have in this country and if we have any sense we should be welcoming more people with open arms. As others on here point out, migrants are far more likely to be of working age when they come here and net contributors to the tax system that pays for our hospitals and schools.
To an extent though, that isn't really the issue. The debate should be why have we closed off legitimate routes for people to claim asylum in this country, thereby forcing them to explore alternative and illegal routes - often in desperation. You may be proud of the approach our government has taken but personally I find it pitiful, mean-spirited and inhumane.
I think we as a people (if there is such a thing) are so, so much better than that.
As an aside, I have been talking to friend today who had a Ukrainian refugee who is returning to Poland to be nearer family. My friend is taking another refugee in, who has commented that one of the reasons she wants to come to the UK is the "general inclusiveness of it." I actually think, behind the headlines and the manufactured hysteria (that manifests itself sometimes in awful ways) we actually are an inclusive country.
Net migration was 540k last year and I consider that to be an extremely bad things for many reasons but it's a matter of opinion. There's no point trying to change my mind with the economic growth argument because I think we (and the rest of the world) need to be downsizing, not upscaling. And as I said earlier, I think it's appalling that as one of the richest countries in the world we benefit from a brain drain of talent educated at the expense of poor countries. It's utterly insane that we can't produce an educated workforce of our own but there's no incentive to do so while we there's a bottomless pit of cheap foreign labour. The whole idea of free movement of labour is a capitalist idea and I despair that people nowadays who consider themselves to be on the left can't see that.
Immigration is a complex issue @LDF and can be made more complex by the separate but related issue of asylum (which itself is complicated by the difference between Ukrainian and Hong Kongers invited here for asylum and for example Kurdish people who arrive by boats. )
You really have to break it down into small chunks to have a worthwhile conversation.
1) You started this conversation by suggesting that the level of immigration is responsible for the current poor performance of the NHS.
I and others pointed out to you that immigrants often work for the NHS and in general at the very least pay tax to pay for the NHS. There is no justification for blaming the current poor NHS performance on the NHS. Perhaps you could just confirm that either
a) you now accept that your original claim was wrong or
b) provide some justification for it.
2) In exchange for 1) it is only fair that I address one of your other reasons why you consider the current level of immigration detrimental. I suggest there isn't time to constantly flip between one reason and then when that falls another etc etc. So could I ask you to choose what you consider your strongest reason. I'll then be happy to give you my view on whatever your point is - maybe I'll agree , maybe I'll disagree and explain why.
It is perhaps sometimes easier to describe what you do not want than what you want, South Korea is a glowing example of a high performing education system that churns out so many well educated graduates that they now find themselves in the ludicrous position of even relatively low paid, menial jobs requiring candidates to have degrees, this has apparently led to the second highest rates of suicide in the world as a % of total deaths (after Greenland) - anecdotaly mostly amongst men aged 15-49.
There is no earthly reason why we cannot have a more equitable education system where the most academically able get the best education & all get educated to the best of their abilities, the first step would be to remove the nonsense that is the charitable status of public & private schools puttingthem on the same financial basis as state schools, secondly the state needs to recognise that education is an investment for all our futures & spend accordingly to deliver that. In an ideal world we would also see tertiary education reverting to having no tuition fees & grants for those students from the poorest households to cover their living costs; as well as the reintroduction of polytechnics/trade schools (a bit like they have in Germany for example). Having said all that; you need to then be able to provide meaningful work at the completion of this education so a sensible industrial investment strategy is required too, in order to create the required jobs.
Sadly all of this costs money & it appears that both sides of the political divide have convinced themselves that this is limited in availability & something we somehow cannot afford (Unless of course it is being spent on overpriced weapons, then its ok).
I'm hardly alone in thinking that services might not be able to keep up with immigration. The NHS may be recruiting immigrants but immigrants get sick and old as well. I don't know whether NHS recruitment of immigrants is keeping pace with the numbers coming in but it's not just about the staff numbers, you need to consider the infrastructure as well. My world view is that the number one problem facing humanity is our rampant destruction of every living thing on Earth. Virtually every day I switch on the radio and hear the latest on our vanishing wildlife and countryside, swiftly followed by the imperative that we build more housing and infrastructure. BTW, have you noticed that it's mainly the middle class that like high levels of immigration?
The stock market crash of 2008 was blamed on the size of bankers' boners, or something, but IMO it was caused (at least in part) by too many people getting paid too much for not producing anything.
Whether you are alone or not is hardly the point. I have already pointed out to you that you are joined for example by the customers of the Daily Express and GB news. But does your view stand up to scrutiny?
Of course immigrants get old and sick, just like the rest of us. As I have explained to you, the best person for any country is someone who arrives after 18 (and therefore doesn't need educating) and leaves at around 50-55 (and therefore doesn't need so much healthcare or pensions) . Obviously not all individuals will follow that profile but that is the general optimum. And who is closest to that profile? Immigrants. Just the way it is.
And hence because immigrants not only work in the NHS but pay tax to pay for it - both current costs and infrastructure costs - the reality is that immigrants in general subsidise the rest of us. The reality is that if we had zero immigration there would be slightly less demand for NHS services it is true, but proportionately far less staff to deliver it and far less money to pay for it.
I have given you many opportunities to justify your view that immigration is to blame for the poor performance of the NHS. You have failed to get close to providing a coherent justification. I think it might be time for you to stop digging.
I also asked you for your best other example of how immigration was a negative - you didn't give me one - just more random waffling but no substance. I think independent readers might see that as rather telling.
It was mostly caused by ludicrous over speculation in financial derivatives that are in all honestly just a glorified form of gambling & sadly Lehman Brothers lost their shirts & the rest of the world had to take a very long cold bath so the rich didn't lose too much..
When you get to the point of the likes of Goldman Sachs devising financial assets such as so called "death swaps" (where they are essentialy betting that actuaries have got death rates wrong) then you know we have hit rock bottom.
The rentier economy is, as you suggest, a blight on all of us as it is predicated on people making essentially unearned income from renting their assets to others to do the work, or in many cases to allow even greater levels of financial market speculation or control (if you are interested look up stock-lending & instruments like contracts for difference). The problems with a lot of unearned income is that it has a much more favourable tax treatment than your wages thus encouraging both accumulation & speculation.
(for clarity I spent 40 years working in financial services the later 20 as a change manager for merchant/investment banks & asset managers).
For the last time - I believe we need to be training our own workforce and not relying on poverty-stricken countries to do it for us. I gave you two other reasons. Do you actually read my posts?
I do read your posts, patiently waiting for you to make your point.
We have already agreed that I think we should train more doctors - that isn't relevant to whether immigration is responsible for the poor performance of the NHS. So still I wait for you to justify your view that it is.
And still I wait for you to be clear on the other single biggest reason why you believe immigration at the current level is bad for the UK. Not loads of waffle, just a very clear concise reason. What is it?
Oh yes, all that plus the overheating of the subprime mortgage market in the US but I couldn't think of an amusing and risque pun on subprime lending. I wasn't just thinking of the rentier economy but levels of management and various office-based work that is difficult to define and quantify. I admit that it's a suspicion and not based on hard evidence.
Free movement of labour is a capitalist idea? You know the working classes have rioted and protested for hundreds of years precisely because the movement and freedom of labour was restricted. The borders of a nation state are arguably much more of a capitalist idea.
I disagree but I've had enough of this now - got stuff to do - believe it or not. Sod it - very briefly, free movement of labour is a central tenet of economic liberalism. The workers of contemporary Britain are not rioting for free movement of labour as it would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas. I'm hazy on how nation states came about but I suspect more likely a result of feudalism than capitalism.
I actually have a lot of sympathy with your view that in an ideal world we would had an education system that produced exactly the right numbers and skill sets for the needs of the country to be met.
Unfortunately human beings are messy creatures. They do stupid things like fall in love from someone the other side of the world and move around and use their skill sets elsewhere.
Unfortunately human beings are even stupider than they are messy and do moronic things like over-use limited resources and invade their neighbours or fight with others who happen to are physically different from them or hold different religious beliefs or whatever.
Personally (and I accept this may be a middle class thing) I like meeting different people from different backgrounds and different cultures and think as an individual it enriches and educates me.
I happen to live in a relatively wealthy (if appallingly run in my view) country that happens to have a massive shortage of people to undertake the most basic tasks and I welcome anyone who wishes to come and undertake this.
On the positive side of your posts (for me - I accept others agree with you) we’ve experienced peak @DevC this afternoon, which is always a bonus!
(I generally agree with most of what Dev says but I do find the demanding answers bit highly amusing)
Glad to entertain you @bookertease . I do think that if someone throws mud at people or a defined group of people, then they should be challenged to justify that statement but you are probably right, best to let it rest now.
Just gently ribbing @DevC . It is a little quirk of yours and I do get where you’re coming from. I can hear the typewriter keys click when you are posting from here though!
And I challenge you to show me where I've thrown mud at anyone. Let's be honest, the reason you're arguing with me is that you think opposing immigration is immoral. Immigration is morally neutral. Whether you're for or against it may be simply a matter of preference and that's fine. I'll pre-empt your reply and point out that just because all racists oppose immigration, it does not follow that everyone who opposes immigration is a racist. That's basic logic.
I said in a post a few pages back, that the Illegal Immigration Bill was put forward by the Government as a means of clawing back some of the deficit in the polls, hoping to tap into people's fears - real or imagined - about the UK being overwhelmed by uncontrolled immigration.
Of course we are around 18 months away from the next General Election, and anything might happen in that time, but the assumption by some on here that Kier Starmer will sweep into No.10 is no certainty.
When the term 'expat' is stopped being used for British people who choose to become economic immigrants we might finally start to have a rational debate on this topic
Expat depends on your POV. Brits living in other countries are expats from our POV and immigrants from the POV of the country they are in. No doubt in other countries they refer to their citizens that have moved to Britain as expats.
Comments
I believe the current official net migration estimate for 2020 is +88k, and for 2021 +173k.
It’s too soon for any reliable estimates for 2022, although it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s gone up considering the events in Ukraine.
All relevant data/information on a wide variety of topics including migraiton can be found here - https://www.ons.gov.uk/
The International migration stats are here https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration
Indeed the current view expressed by ONS (very heavily caveated with the words provisional & experimental) is that net migration into the UK is the figure @LDF uses. This number includes ALL inward migration whether short or long term e.g. Ukrainian refugees, international students, people coming on Visa's for short term work placements, as well as those intending to make their home here; as well as ALL outward migration such as EU citizens returning home.
Asylum seekers, who the government appear to be attempting to criminalise in contravention of international law as well as scapegoat for most of our ills constitute less than 8% of the current net migration figure.
Fear of immigration is such an irrational thing for a country that is so awash with diverse cultures. The people shouting loudest about the terrifying masses coming to our shores are also supporters of the very people in charge of making such a fuck up of their controlled arrival. Our economy would be far better off with these people in our system earning and paying into the country than marginalising and demonising them.
Funny old world.
I'd like to reiterate that I am not for demonising or marginalising anyone. I still think immigration is out of hand. The 'Singapore model' for Britain, envisaged by some capitalists and neo- liberals is a nightmare scenario for me.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/net-migration#:~:text=The%20net%20migration%20rate%20for,a%209.28%25%20decline%20from%202019.
According to this, the net migration rate to the UK is the lowest for over 20 years. That hardly seems "out of hand" to me. Balance that to the high vacancy levels and skills shortages we currently have in this country and if we have any sense we should be welcoming more people with open arms. As others on here point out, migrants are far more likely to be of working age when they come here and net contributors to the tax system that pays for our hospitals and schools.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0001/#:~:text=Vacancies%20are%20high,for%20every%20100%20employee%20jobs.
To an extent though, that isn't really the issue. The debate should be why have we closed off legitimate routes for people to claim asylum in this country, thereby forcing them to explore alternative and illegal routes - often in desperation. You may be proud of the approach our government has taken but personally I find it pitiful, mean-spirited and inhumane.
I think we as a people (if there is such a thing) are so, so much better than that.
As an aside, I have been talking to friend today who had a Ukrainian refugee who is returning to Poland to be nearer family. My friend is taking another refugee in, who has commented that one of the reasons she wants to come to the UK is the "general inclusiveness of it." I actually think, behind the headlines and the manufactured hysteria (that manifests itself sometimes in awful ways) we actually are an inclusive country.
Net migration was 540k last year and I consider that to be an extremely bad things for many reasons but it's a matter of opinion. There's no point trying to change my mind with the economic growth argument because I think we (and the rest of the world) need to be downsizing, not upscaling. And as I said earlier, I think it's appalling that as one of the richest countries in the world we benefit from a brain drain of talent educated at the expense of poor countries. It's utterly insane that we can't produce an educated workforce of our own but there's no incentive to do so while we there's a bottomless pit of cheap foreign labour. The whole idea of free movement of labour is a capitalist idea and I despair that people nowadays who consider themselves to be on the left can't see that.
I've absolutely no idea where I got that net migration figure from but it does certainly seem to be very wrong indeed. Sorry for derailing.
No worries. I couldn't post earlier, for some reason, and wondered if you'd banned me, lol.
Immigration is a complex issue @LDF and can be made more complex by the separate but related issue of asylum (which itself is complicated by the difference between Ukrainian and Hong Kongers invited here for asylum and for example Kurdish people who arrive by boats. )
You really have to break it down into small chunks to have a worthwhile conversation.
1) You started this conversation by suggesting that the level of immigration is responsible for the current poor performance of the NHS.
I and others pointed out to you that immigrants often work for the NHS and in general at the very least pay tax to pay for the NHS. There is no justification for blaming the current poor NHS performance on the NHS. Perhaps you could just confirm that either
a) you now accept that your original claim was wrong or
b) provide some justification for it.
2) In exchange for 1) it is only fair that I address one of your other reasons why you consider the current level of immigration detrimental. I suggest there isn't time to constantly flip between one reason and then when that falls another etc etc. So could I ask you to choose what you consider your strongest reason. I'll then be happy to give you my view on whatever your point is - maybe I'll agree , maybe I'll disagree and explain why.
The problems of an educated workforce...
It is perhaps sometimes easier to describe what you do not want than what you want, South Korea is a glowing example of a high performing education system that churns out so many well educated graduates that they now find themselves in the ludicrous position of even relatively low paid, menial jobs requiring candidates to have degrees, this has apparently led to the second highest rates of suicide in the world as a % of total deaths (after Greenland) - anecdotaly mostly amongst men aged 15-49.
There is no earthly reason why we cannot have a more equitable education system where the most academically able get the best education & all get educated to the best of their abilities, the first step would be to remove the nonsense that is the charitable status of public & private schools puttingthem on the same financial basis as state schools, secondly the state needs to recognise that education is an investment for all our futures & spend accordingly to deliver that. In an ideal world we would also see tertiary education reverting to having no tuition fees & grants for those students from the poorest households to cover their living costs; as well as the reintroduction of polytechnics/trade schools (a bit like they have in Germany for example). Having said all that; you need to then be able to provide meaningful work at the completion of this education so a sensible industrial investment strategy is required too, in order to create the required jobs.
Sadly all of this costs money & it appears that both sides of the political divide have convinced themselves that this is limited in availability & something we somehow cannot afford (Unless of course it is being spent on overpriced weapons, then its ok).
I'm hardly alone in thinking that services might not be able to keep up with immigration. The NHS may be recruiting immigrants but immigrants get sick and old as well. I don't know whether NHS recruitment of immigrants is keeping pace with the numbers coming in but it's not just about the staff numbers, you need to consider the infrastructure as well. My world view is that the number one problem facing humanity is our rampant destruction of every living thing on Earth. Virtually every day I switch on the radio and hear the latest on our vanishing wildlife and countryside, swiftly followed by the imperative that we build more housing and infrastructure. BTW, have you noticed that it's mainly the middle class that like high levels of immigration?
This!
The stock market crash of 2008 was blamed on the size of bankers' boners, or something, but IMO it was caused (at least in part) by too many people getting paid too much for not producing anything.
Whether you are alone or not is hardly the point. I have already pointed out to you that you are joined for example by the customers of the Daily Express and GB news. But does your view stand up to scrutiny?
Of course immigrants get old and sick, just like the rest of us. As I have explained to you, the best person for any country is someone who arrives after 18 (and therefore doesn't need educating) and leaves at around 50-55 (and therefore doesn't need so much healthcare or pensions) . Obviously not all individuals will follow that profile but that is the general optimum. And who is closest to that profile? Immigrants. Just the way it is.
And hence because immigrants not only work in the NHS but pay tax to pay for it - both current costs and infrastructure costs - the reality is that immigrants in general subsidise the rest of us. The reality is that if we had zero immigration there would be slightly less demand for NHS services it is true, but proportionately far less staff to deliver it and far less money to pay for it.
I have given you many opportunities to justify your view that immigration is to blame for the poor performance of the NHS. You have failed to get close to providing a coherent justification. I think it might be time for you to stop digging.
I also asked you for your best other example of how immigration was a negative - you didn't give me one - just more random waffling but no substance. I think independent readers might see that as rather telling.
Well yes & no...
It was mostly caused by ludicrous over speculation in financial derivatives that are in all honestly just a glorified form of gambling & sadly Lehman Brothers lost their shirts & the rest of the world had to take a very long cold bath so the rich didn't lose too much..
When you get to the point of the likes of Goldman Sachs devising financial assets such as so called "death swaps" (where they are essentialy betting that actuaries have got death rates wrong) then you know we have hit rock bottom.
The rentier economy is, as you suggest, a blight on all of us as it is predicated on people making essentially unearned income from renting their assets to others to do the work, or in many cases to allow even greater levels of financial market speculation or control (if you are interested look up stock-lending & instruments like contracts for difference). The problems with a lot of unearned income is that it has a much more favourable tax treatment than your wages thus encouraging both accumulation & speculation.
(for clarity I spent 40 years working in financial services the later 20 as a change manager for merchant/investment banks & asset managers).
For the last time - I believe we need to be training our own workforce and not relying on poverty-stricken countries to do it for us. I gave you two other reasons. Do you actually read my posts?
I do read your posts, patiently waiting for you to make your point.
We have already agreed that I think we should train more doctors - that isn't relevant to whether immigration is responsible for the poor performance of the NHS. So still I wait for you to justify your view that it is.
And still I wait for you to be clear on the other single biggest reason why you believe immigration at the current level is bad for the UK. Not loads of waffle, just a very clear concise reason. What is it?
Oh yes, all that plus the overheating of the subprime mortgage market in the US but I couldn't think of an amusing and risque pun on subprime lending. I wasn't just thinking of the rentier economy but levels of management and various office-based work that is difficult to define and quantify. I admit that it's a suspicion and not based on hard evidence.
Free movement of labour is a capitalist idea? You know the working classes have rioted and protested for hundreds of years precisely because the movement and freedom of labour was restricted. The borders of a nation state are arguably much more of a capitalist idea.
I disagree but I've had enough of this now - got stuff to do - believe it or not. Sod it - very briefly, free movement of labour is a central tenet of economic liberalism. The workers of contemporary Britain are not rioting for free movement of labour as it would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas. I'm hazy on how nation states came about but I suspect more likely a result of feudalism than capitalism.
Destruction of the environment - as I said before.
So just to confirm you have given up on the immigration adversely affecting the NHS?
Then lets talk about environment
I actually have a lot of sympathy with your view that in an ideal world we would had an education system that produced exactly the right numbers and skill sets for the needs of the country to be met.
Unfortunately human beings are messy creatures. They do stupid things like fall in love from someone the other side of the world and move around and use their skill sets elsewhere.
Unfortunately human beings are even stupider than they are messy and do moronic things like over-use limited resources and invade their neighbours or fight with others who happen to are physically different from them or hold different religious beliefs or whatever.
Personally (and I accept this may be a middle class thing) I like meeting different people from different backgrounds and different cultures and think as an individual it enriches and educates me.
I happen to live in a relatively wealthy (if appallingly run in my view) country that happens to have a massive shortage of people to undertake the most basic tasks and I welcome anyone who wishes to come and undertake this.
On the positive side of your posts (for me - I accept others agree with you) we’ve experienced peak @DevC this afternoon, which is always a bonus!
(I generally agree with most of what Dev says but I do find the demanding answers bit highly amusing)
Glad to entertain you @bookertease . I do think that if someone throws mud at people or a defined group of people, then they should be challenged to justify that statement but you are probably right, best to let it rest now.
Just gently ribbing @DevC . It is a little quirk of yours and I do get where you’re coming from. I can hear the typewriter keys click when you are posting from here though!
(Don’t ever change)
Logic and rational thought are so passe @DevC
And I challenge you to show me where I've thrown mud at anyone. Let's be honest, the reason you're arguing with me is that you think opposing immigration is immoral. Immigration is morally neutral. Whether you're for or against it may be simply a matter of preference and that's fine. I'll pre-empt your reply and point out that just because all racists oppose immigration, it does not follow that everyone who opposes immigration is a racist. That's basic logic.
I said in a post a few pages back, that the Illegal Immigration Bill was put forward by the Government as a means of clawing back some of the deficit in the polls, hoping to tap into people's fears - real or imagined - about the UK being overwhelmed by uncontrolled immigration.
Today, The Independent, not known for being a Tory-supporting paper, has published a poll showing a significant rise in support for the Tories, with 42% in favour of the plan and 25% opposed: Tories see poll boost with Conservative voters over migration policy (msn.com)
Of course we are around 18 months away from the next General Election, and anything might happen in that time, but the assumption by some on here that Kier Starmer will sweep into No.10 is no certainty.
When the term 'expat' is stopped being used for British people who choose to become economic immigrants we might finally start to have a rational debate on this topic
Expat depends on your POV. Brits living in other countries are expats from our POV and immigrants from the POV of the country they are in. No doubt in other countries they refer to their citizens that have moved to Britain as expats.