Alpha Man Gummies Uk -Mosstrim Diet...
How it Works2 mins ago
So How Are The Labour Party Going To Respond To This?
30 Answers
Or have they just been seriously torpedoed by a traditionally left of centre research group? Fuel for the Tories, UKIP and all the rest......
Apparently Labour immigration from outside the EEA has cost the public purse a mere £120 billion over their terms of office, though the recent immigration of Eastern Euros have given a boost to the tune of £4.4 bln.
Why? Expenditure that has gone on extra NHS costs, welfare, education etc and outweighing the amount that they have brought in.
We want to elect this shower in again? Folk must be joking.
Apparently Labour immigration from outside the EEA has cost the public purse a mere £120 billion over their terms of office, though the recent immigration of Eastern Euros have given a boost to the tune of £4.4 bln.
Why? Expenditure that has gone on extra NHS costs, welfare, education etc and outweighing the amount that they have brought in.
We want to elect this shower in again? Folk must be joking.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DTCwordfan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I refer the honerable gentlefolk to my post of 10:35 Wed 05th Nov 2014 in http://
hope you don't mind, geezer;
Old_Geezer
I would also like to say I disbelieve that the UK gains £20bn from European migrants. Given that any immigrant paying tax must be doing so because they have a job here that otherwise could have been given to a native, who would then have paid the same tax, there is a net gain of zero. In addition, the fact that the native who could have had the job now remains on welfare means that there is a net expense to the taxpayer.
I suspect UCL economists are not considering the larger picture, and consequently missing vital calculations. If this is so, then it makes me ponder on why they are given the job if they come up with erroneous conclusions and then try to fool us all with them. But ignoring the larger picture in order to convince folk up is down, and in is out, seems a common practice from 'authorities' these days//
Old_Geezer
I would also like to say I disbelieve that the UK gains £20bn from European migrants. Given that any immigrant paying tax must be doing so because they have a job here that otherwise could have been given to a native, who would then have paid the same tax, there is a net gain of zero. In addition, the fact that the native who could have had the job now remains on welfare means that there is a net expense to the taxpayer.
I suspect UCL economists are not considering the larger picture, and consequently missing vital calculations. If this is so, then it makes me ponder on why they are given the job if they come up with erroneous conclusions and then try to fool us all with them. But ignoring the larger picture in order to convince folk up is down, and in is out, seems a common practice from 'authorities' these days//
Zacs
They do take emigration into account. They are the net migration figure. That is worked out by subtracting the emigrants from the immigrants figure. The result is the number of additions to our population.
The Coaltion net immigration figure is going the wrong way. It is increasing annually. The 243,000 is worse than 11 of Labour's annual figures.
They do take emigration into account. They are the net migration figure. That is worked out by subtracting the emigrants from the immigrants figure. The result is the number of additions to our population.
The Coaltion net immigration figure is going the wrong way. It is increasing annually. The 243,000 is worse than 11 of Labour's annual figures.
It seems to be a true statement that when statistics align with what you want them to say they're honest, but if they contradict their views they must have been twisted... not exactly consistent, that, but we're seeing it here (from both sides, to be fair).
Svejk's recent argument is rather specious because it doesn't at all follow that jobs and benefits are a zero-sum game. Having said that there is more to this than the economic argument. What would be nice is if, just once, people could recognise that results gathered from a large study mapping several years' worth of data from across the country might actually lead to a picture that's more accurate than sticking your head out of the window now and then.
Svejk's recent argument is rather specious because it doesn't at all follow that jobs and benefits are a zero-sum game. Having said that there is more to this than the economic argument. What would be nice is if, just once, people could recognise that results gathered from a large study mapping several years' worth of data from across the country might actually lead to a picture that's more accurate than sticking your head out of the window now and then.
DTCwordfan,
I think Gromit's figures for net migration encompass both EU and no-EU migrants, and of these figures go from 1995 up to and including the last 18 months, then it's a little unfair to ask how the Labour Party are going to respond, as it covers not only Labour governments, but also Conservative and the Coalition reigns.
However, it would be useful for Gromit to cite the source of his stats.
I think Gromit's figures for net migration encompass both EU and no-EU migrants, and of these figures go from 1995 up to and including the last 18 months, then it's a little unfair to ask how the Labour Party are going to respond, as it covers not only Labour governments, but also Conservative and the Coalition reigns.
However, it would be useful for Gromit to cite the source of his stats.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.