‘Almost one in three of England’s primary school children is from an ethnic minority – the highest level yet. One pupil in five speaks English as a second language.’
‘The UK’s population has increased by around 5 million since 2001.’
There is an enormous and growing pressure on schools as they struggle to cope with the influx of new pupils who turn up on their doorsteps expecting a free British education.
That ‘free’ British education of course costs money…a lot of money….the government having to pump in at least £12 billion extra to try and cope….the Unions saying that amount will only cover 40-60% of the funding actually needed.
Immigrants of course, the BBC tells us, are highly beneficial for the economy, EU immigrants, the BBC insists, paying more in tax then they take out of the system….never mind that the majority of jobs they take are low pay ones that in no way pay for child care, housing and education and health.
On Saturday Mishal Husain did a piece on the crisis in schools (08:40)…remarkably she managed to do the whole report without once mentioning immigration herself despite the two guests both saying that immigration was the main cause of the crisis.
How is it possible to completely avoid the cause of overcrowding in schools, the ‘blackhole’, the’ breaking point’, when talking about this subject, especially as the BBC were so keen to pillory the Tories for having failed to reach their target in limiting immigration in the run up to the election?
Husain was though, eager to suggest that the government was failing in its approach telling us that ‘the situation is far from ideal……it doesn’t sound as if it is enough [funding]….it’s not the way you’d want the education system to work’.
Husain, an immigrant herself, and one having history on this subject, does the usual BBC thing and dodges the real story, the uncomfortable truth that immigration is causing enormous problems throughout the UK. The BBC is only interested in telling us the ‘good news’, even if it has to make that up (ie how much tax they pay), the BBC is extremely reluctant to highlight the negative sides to mass immigration. The BBC is once again more concerned with attempting to ‘social engineer’ our perceptions and subsequent actions than actually delivering the News.
If you increase the population , you have to increase the infrastructure of the nation — immediately .
An immigrant , even if not on the minimum wage , has not and will not pay for that increase immediately .
Plus I would like the BBC to explain how we are to reduce our so called carbon emissions at the same time as having rapid population growth, and how we we are to feed the population at the same time taking more land out of agricultural use ( unless the BBC secretly believes in Genetically Modified foods ) .
We are very fortunate to have a fairly adequate supply of water in the country but this is not finite, the more the population, the more the demand. We have experienced droughts in the past, remember the standpipes?
How are the ‘global warmists’ going to answer this problem ?
Agree with you-population figures from a statistical report which involved a number of the major grocery & clothing multiple retail outlets produced a population figure of over 70 million-judging by other entities such as migrant watch that number would be about right. And yes the ifrastructure is crumbling under such numbers and it could get worse. A report presented some 40 yrs ago suggested that at that time a population figure of 50 million was pushing the boundaries in respect to the infrastructure, so at 70 million we are in trouble.
That figure of 50 million is based on sustainability overall and not just regarding infrastructure. It takes into account how much agricultural land is required to feed us – something which has been far surpassed. We can no longer feed ourselves.
As you seem to be commenting only upon, “England”, It is a fact that it’s been a very long time since England was NOT a net importer of food/drink, fuel, power and manufactured goods. This, of course, is mainly why, “England”, has racked up for, “The United Kingdom”, such a massive national debt.
So spare a thought for the UK country that is a net exporter of all four such commodities, (mainly to England), and also note that their export statistics are falsified as the UK Government accounts record exports not as from where they originate within the, “United Kingdom”, but as from which UK country airport or seaport the leave the United Kingdom.
Thus crediting England with a great deal of Scotland’s commodities. For example, “Scotch Whisky”, is only produced in Scotland but, “Diagio”, exports it via English air & sea ports and this fiddles the figures in favour of England.
Then we have the scam of all oil & gas revenues classed as being from, “Extra-Regio Territory”, and paid directly into the UK, (de facto Parliament of England), Treasury. Yet on a geographic basis around 95% of those revenues came from internationally recognised Scottish territorial waters as legally under Scottish Jurisdiction.
You really should stop believing the Establishment’s propaganda.
In the last election, if I remember right, Labour was promising to build atleast 200,000 homes each year. Supposedly the population of the UK is not booming to such an extent. So this massive construction programme, likely funded by the taxpayer, was for housing future Labour voters – highly qualified engineers etc , waiting in Syria, Libya and points East.
The BBC are their most biased when discussing immigration. Or rather not discussing it, because they so often ignore it when discussing any of the major problems facing the UK. And there is hardly any area of public life that is not affected by immigration.
One of its blatant bias programs was the Panorama series which aired just before the general election. One of the episodes, “Somewhere to live” examined the housing crisis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02lc66b
Immigration was not mentioned once. The only blame that Mariella Frostrup (Labour supporter) was laid at the door of Margaret Thatcher and her right to buy policy. Millions of immigrants allowed in under Labour, all requiring housing, were totally ignored.
Yes it’s all Thatcher’s fault, for creating the conditions for wealth creation, or creating unemployment, or being against the single currency, or something.
They (BBC) are part of the marxist regime currently residing in Brussels & Berlin. The gates of Vienna have been opened to welcome the ravages of those that follow the teachings of Islam and throughout Europe to the tune of 52 million and counting. The majority fed duplicitous nonsense to continue the enslavement and subjugation, adding to the confusion in really having little or no understanding of what is happening & which way to vote. You could say we are war.
The BBC has often quoted only part of the UCL immigration report , the part which says what immigrants put into the economy .
They normally leave out the part which says that as a whole immigration has cost the taxpayers [ the rest of us ] £ billions .
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/11/05/immigration-has-cost-britain-150-billion-eu-sponsored-report-finds/
Interesting how the Beeb seeks to reduce this issue to mere economics. Is this the same BBC that used to trumpet the old line that Margaret Thatcher knew the price of everything and the value of nothing?
The key to the whole debate and one the liberal elites will ignore because they are unable to face reality.
Repeat till you are tired of it. There is no instance in recorded history of a settled people voluntarily giving up their land to others. Not one.
Yet this is what the elites are asking of us. So they deny the reality of being an Englishman by denying our existence. We are all other people from other places. No we are not.
Repeat again till you are tired of it.
Between the Norman Conquest and the late 19th century
( please leave out the Hugenots) where did the immigrants come from and when.
That England was always a nation of immigrants is a massive lie. One of the worst of lies because it affects our very future existence.
We are or were an Anglo Saxon/Celtic/Scandinavian people and that is that.
Our children are lied to in our schools and our elites lie every bloody day.
Kipling, Chesterton, Cobbett .Paine and others knew who we were and tell the truth. Today the entire arts establshment and the media/political class lies.
As Pegida called it- the lugenpresse.
That England has come to this is beyond my comprehension. These people who bought us to this pass are not only traitors but have broken that bond that unites past present and future generationsof the English. There is nothing to say to them any more except to turn your back. I do not know how this will turn out but the future is bleak and we need to prepare for it.
Maybe get ready to leave maybe not but driven out we will be unless we remeber who we really are.
Bravo, well said sir.
“Between the Norman Conquest and the late 19th century
( please leave out the Hugenots) where did the immigrants come from and when.”
Europe is the quick answer and from before the Tudor period. If you watched Wolf Hall, you may have noticed how people moved around Europe – in both directions. This went on until the Hugenots arrived as well as after that.
Obviously not in vast numbers and often remaining scattered in small communities. A friend of mine married a girl who was fairly certain (before the internet age) that she could trace part of her family back to shipwrecked Spaniards from the Armada in Elizabethan times. She came from a settled small community that was known to have accepted Spanish mariners. I don’t know if she has since researched it more thoroughly. If you look into some of the families that would be regarded as ‘establishment’ or ‘blue blood’ you sometimes find Portugese, Dutch, German, Spanish and other nationalities’ names. Could not have a better example of our good Queen Elizabeth (about to become Britain’s longest reigning monarch, God bless her!) although her family are more recent incomers!
The BBC, ‘the Left’ & those with various motives for encouraging widespread migration into Britain are going to have to wake up to the fact that most countries around the world do not have open borders and have not had them since the end of World War 2.
They should also be made aware of the negative effect that their ‘New Imperialism’ has on the countries the migrants leave. It is strange how they are so horrified about the ‘Old Imperialism’ (which brought us the first Indian MP in London at the end of the 19th/beginning 20th century 😉 ) but are quite happy to exploit the ‘best’ out of developing countries for our supposed advantage in the 21st century.
I find that distasteful. The (small) mass of European migrants together with any others that I refer to in answer to your question came here freely through relatively open or completely open borders. People are now being widely exploited, not least the lowest and low-mid income groups in this country who, if not cursed by unemployment, are paying the tax to cope with it all. Many of them are relatively recent immigrants or children or grandchildren of immigrants themselves.
It is time for Europe to pay for the infrastructure investment that we need, otherwise this exploitation may not work out as envisaged or at all well.
A few points. Our present monarch is descended only very indirectly from the Tudor line itself by no means a convincing claimant to the throne. Via the daughter of James 1 who married the Elector Palatine. Think of the political elite after the death of Queen Anne looking desperately for anyone who could vaguely claim the throne and was not a Catholic
Which is why I prefer to describe us as a republic with a monarch as head of state.
I did not watch Wolf Hall and see no relevance at all to my main thesis. Of course we had contact with Europe but it was small scale. There is no evidence of any immigration per se.
The Hugenots. They shared our Protestant faith and were true refugees from catholic Europe. A once and only immigration and not for economic reasons at all.
England was a rural country until the industrial revolution. My ancestors lived quietly in their village for generations. This was the norm in England. It was never multi anything. The ruling class was probably more cosmopolitan but us peasants not at all. We were never Norman French .
Forget any economic argument. it is in the end an existential matter. Do we the English wish to hand on our land as it was handed on to us down the generations. In the end it will come down to this and if we are wise we will face up to this reality.
As to Europe paying for this and that. It will never happen. We are geographically part of Europe but have a completely different history and outlook. They know it but our elites are in denial about it which is why Cameron is so pathetically trying to amend our EU treaties. The EU wants us on it’s terms and always has. It would be best for all if we left and soon.
i should have mentioned that James the First’s claim was via his mother Mary Queen of Scots whose father was the son of Henry V11’s daughter but you probably all knew that.
It all gets complicated and a bit silly which is why I became a republican when quite small although a Tory one !
Dave, sorry but I forgot to point out in my post below that in Wolf Hall we see the protestant(!) & the Protestant Reformation being substantially helped by migration. So, there were native Brits who were going to Europe to learn from Luther, Zwingli, Hus & others and Europeans, some/many fleeing persecution by ‘The Church’, coming to England (& Scotland) and bringing their new understandings and questions together with translations of The Bible with them.
BTW, re our Monarch; I think she is more German than anything else & Prince Philip is part-Greek. Thus, rather like Snuffy 😉 , their progeny are mongrels. 🙂
You asked what immigration there was into the UK prior to the Huguenots. I merely answered as best I could!
You’ve now added an additional question for me: do the English (I assume you mean white English – is that fair of me to assume that? If so, that’s now another debatable point) “wish to hand on our land as it was handed on to us.”
Sorry, but I can only reply with another question: in a changed & ever faster changing world, can anyone (anywhere?) who sees out their three score years and ten (+10) pass on a land that was unchanged from their entry into adulthood let alone their birth?
On economics:
We cannot, at present, deal with the needs of our present population, let alone cater for further incomers, while paying between £5bn & £15bn+ p.a. to the EU and maintaining present tax rates & differentials. The alternative is for all 3 income tax bands to be increased substantially and we both know that two of them are populated by those at the bottom who cannot pay more and those at the top who will not pay more.
If ‘Free Movement’ is to be maintained within the EU, not only has the EU to pay now for the infrastructure needed at final destinations (ie Eire & UK & northern Europe) but the UK’s annual contribution has got to go negative. I’m afraid it IS about economics, and then politics, in the end.
As it was in the time of Wolf Hall. (Do watch it when it comes around on iPlayer – a good BBC production for a change.) And quite informative in all sorts of ways.
Your argument on economics seems to assume that we must stay in the EU. I maintain we must leave and soon.
One main reason. A free people must retain the sole right to elect their governers from amongst themselves. This right is inalienable and cannot be given away by any one generation. It is a definition of freedom under the law and I suggest is easy for all to grasp.
From this all other actions taken by a free people follow.
That done we can run England as we wish . There is nothing inevitable about human history or the life of a nation. That is how the marxists delude us by suggesting that there is.
Sometimes one day and the actions of a few can decide the fate of future generations, We have lost sight of this truth in a welter of jargon and lies.
An example I often use is the Battle of Hastings. Hard fought and very evenly matched forces. The right flank of the English made a terrible mistake and broke ranks pursuing the fleeing Normans. That was the key moment of the battle and Harold must have known what peril he was then in.
The language I am writing in is directly related to the events of that day as is so much of our history.
There are those of liberal persuasion who deny that men and their actions can affect peoples and the future. That it is all inevitable in the onward march of liberalism. They are wrong.
Homer in those incomparable works the Iliad and the Odyssey tells us exactly what to be human and to live in this world really is and always will be. An antidote to liberal fantasy and one of the finest achievements of Western culture.
This right is inalienable and cannot be given away by any one generation
And that is the crux of it. The fact is, that our politicians have effectively given away what was not theirs to give.
Would not disagree, and am currently an ‘Out’ unless the EU drastically reforms itself. It may fail anyway, if it does not. The alternative would be to press on with the ‘ever closer ties and integration’ which have been proceeding at a snail’s pace for the last 20 years and even slower before that.
1. Cameron gets some but inadequate reforms; pushes to stay in the EU (but remains silent on EZ & integration – effectively leaving that to one of his successors) and the bulk of the voting population
a) believe him & the IN campaign & vote to stay, or,
b) enough don’t believe him in a way that threatens to crumble the UK. Everything then depends on how we deal with the mess.
2. Sooner or later THE major Treaty change will come along and trigger another Referendum, if the EU & EZ has not imploded before then. I really can’t see the UK population tolerating a serious surrender of sovereignty (am not sure various northern EU/EZ countries will accept that, either – Poland probably would not, Holland would be doubtful & I think Germany might also vote No) and we will be out at third time of asking.
The current Eurocrats, the MEPs & current national leaders, together with any who regard themselves as successor architects of ‘the Plan’, really have to wake up: the whole enterprise is pretty much doomed unless there are ‘Events, dear boy, events.’ that no-one can foresee.
Again the economics is inescapable: Germany MUST export more outside the EU otherwise it will wither and die, taking the rest of the EZ with it.
There’s very few instances in recent history of developed countries sustaining strong economic growth without the benefit of immigration. The future is bright!
It’s all very well to say that the USA, Canada and Australia were built by immigrants, but that was in the days of the great industrial boom, fuelled by manufacturing.
But with nearly all manufacturing being done in the Far East, with little chance of relocation back to the UK, what wealth-creating work is actually available for those economic migrants to do ?
So what drives the economy now? High-end services and tech, massively boosted by imported skills, plus the entire support network that makes the UK an attractive place to locate, which is itself propped up and pushed on by immigration.
It’s one think to bemoan the liberal media’s blinkers around strains on infrastructure which doesn’t help anyone, but if we ever made a genuine attempt to stop immigration we’d basically be Russia – a backward nation dying on its arse.
“massively boosted by imported skills”
And does all immigration do that, or just some of it?
Parts of the US IT industry certainly depend on immigration for their success but those places do not remotely resemble Bradford or Dewsbury. Strange, that.
Just some of it. I’m making a general point that if we shut down immigration to the extent that some commenters seem to favour all the evidence suggests that we are screwed.
‘Some commenters’. Not those on here, most of whom would support a sensible, controlled approach to immigration – which is the opposite of what we have had since Blair opened the floodgates in ’97 after he decided it would be a good idea to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’.
High-end services and tech, massively boosted by imported skills,
However high tech engineers go where they are wanted. The US is a case in point.
Quite so and the native inhabitants of those places were crushed by the European immigrants. Which is another example of my argument that there has never been a people voluntarily giving up their land.
The other factor those countries have in common is huge size and plenty of space but even that did not stop hostility between the indigenous and ithe incomers.
Scotland: widespread outward migration & having a large State-employed proportion of the population at one end of the spectrum and the Baltic States at the other end?
Thousands of Scots emigrated to Canada and New Zealand in the 18th / 19th centuries.
You have Nova Scotia (“New Scotland”) in Canada, and the city of Dunedin (named after Edinburgh) in NZ.
There are some exaggerations about the benefits of highly skilled immigrants. Many come to our universities, with a reputation for research in various Asian countries and bring with them appallingly backward cultural traditions, outmoded management practices, nepotism, and bullying, which amounts to an onslaught on originality and creativity which was once a driving force in this country.
Before I quit IT in 2006, the outsoured Indian development staff kept a ghetto mentality in the office, talking amongst each other in ‘Hinglish’, and had a different culture and logic from the British-trained developers. Their work was frankly sub-standard and it took in-house teams to correct their incompetence.
my experience over 20 years of financial services in the city has been quite the opposite. the low-end stuff we offshore tends to be pretty rubbish though
And the rest of the ‘family’ they bring over wih them? What part do they play in this so-called massive immigration contribution to our economy?
Only a small fraction of the 300,000 entering Britain every year could be considered to be highly skilled or educated. The Japanese recognise the fact that large numbers of non-Japanese with large cultural differences from the indigenous population cause social tensions. If they want to increase their unskilled or semi-skilled workforce they build plants like Nissan in the North of England. By contrast in the sixties, the British government shipped in 100,000s of Pakistanis who were illiterates in their own languages, never mind English to work in the failing textile industry in towns like Bradford. Of course when the industry finally collapsed you had 100,000s of unemployable Pakistanis, which goes some way to explain the on-going malaise of Northern towns like Bradford. The unions in the sixties, of course, objected to British companies expanding their wokforce abroad on the Nissan model as this was “robbing British workers of employment opportunities”. However the workers are still unemployed to the same extent whether they are undercut by cheap immigrant labour or new jobs are moved off-shore. To the unions unemployment and social strife was preferable to just unemployment. No rational person could see why. People say that because of an ageing population we will need inceasing numbers of unskilled immigrants to look after the elderly gaga and these jobs cannot be exported. This is nonsense as the legions of British pensioners in Spain are always being cited by the BBC as evidence of a hypocritical attitude about immigration.
Cockney suggested: “There’s very few instances in recent history of developed countries sustaining strong economic growth without the benefit of immigration. The future is bright!”
I was suggesting Scotland as an example that would not be helped by mass immigration & has only survived 1. with taxpayer support, 2. its share of a natural resource that may well be finished ‘morally’ (if some get their way this year) & is currently not doing too well demand wise anyway, and 3. has (net) exported its young & others.
Cockney, you describe a Ponzi scheme requiring an endless growing supply of food, water and land, we have little of any of these left to support such a “bright” future.
woe woe woe look at all those food shortages we’ve been suffering, what with two thirds of supermarket sales being binned or whatever the scandal was. Absolute pants. Successful developed world countries embrace immigration with enthusiasm and without bitching. Failing ones turn inwards into bull like your comment.
Oh turn to abuse do we cockney sparrow ? Not unlike someone by the name of ‘Chippy’ …..
I note you do not offer any facts against my argument. The amount of food we can grow in the UK is finite and getting smaller as more land is taken up to house a wildly growing population. The rest of our food has to be bought abroad and imported, with a vastly increasing world population and a China wanting huge amounts of better food, then at some point it is going to get very expensive on the world market or impossible to obtain, then what ?
If you are middle aged you might just remember that in the past we had rather severe droughts that led to water supplies running very low, this was before the mass immigration of the Blair years. How about we have a ” climate changing” drought so beloved of by the greenies, where does the water to supply the extra millions of Ponzi scheme mouths come from eh ?
Land ? We have loads of land to build on especially in London where all the demand is, so much land that the Tories want to build a high speed commuter line ( taking yet more farmland ) so that the middle classes down South can afford a nice house at a feasible price up in the midlands and still get to work on time. Like all dreamers you suppose that your grand plans have no consequences I beg to differ. And as for your “successful developed world countries embrace immigration with enthusiasm and without bitching” ( have you thought of English grammar courses, little feathered friend ?) which countries are they then ? France, ? Italy ? Germany ? Austria ? The US ? Australia ? , ha, ha, ha you really ought to read a bit more news old chap, you are well out of date.
There is precisely zero evidence of impending food shortages in Western Europe. The capacity to step things up vastly exceeds population growth.
It depends on your definition of middle age but the “rather severe draughts” that I remember consisted of my dad getting a bit annoyed that he couldn’t hose the car down. If I was a South Asian I’d be a bit worried about climate change and being a global citizen I should probably be a bit concerned on their behalf. The direct impact on me for the foreseeable is zero.
We have lots of land in this country if we need it. Nimbys have always made a lot of noise in local papers that nobody reads but ultimately progress will overcome. I’m sure the middle classes down South are very annoying but as they/we drive the economy you’ll have to suck it up.
You can find lots and lots of news stories about immigration concerns in all those countries, up to and including big shouty protests. If you live in a sealed echo chamber of likeminded obsessives you could easily interpret this as mass discontent. Meanwhile 95% of the population of successful countries crack on being successful and even enjoy a bit of cultural importation from time to time.
“enjoy a BIT of cultural importation from time to time.” everything you write is bollocks, employers can now happily import “skills” to fill 60k+ jobs for 30k, its not just the unemployed and minimum wage earners that are feeling the pinch or should that be tight squeeze of the bollocks, its just a race to the bottom of the pay scales, i see this shit daily, there is no benefit of mass immigration to the people already here whatever their colour or creed.
How about a part developed country then, Cockney, as another counter to your wild claim: India?
“There’s very few instances in recent history of developed countries sustaining strong economic growth without the benefit of immigration. The future is bright!”
Just pondering this anew, can you name any non-First & Second World country that is currently succeeding, Cockney, by allowing in massive numbers of migrants? I cannot. China. Mexico. The ASEAN nations? No. Taiwan maybe? South Korea certainly did not. The Baltic States, tbmk, have not taken in vast numbers of immigrants but they are now succeeding as are Slovakia & the Czech Republic.
I think your premise would obviously be true for Australia, Canada, New Zealand & the United States but world economics were very different then.
So, where has widespread immigration been economically beneficial, a prime driver, post-1970?
Cockney isn’t bright enough to distinguish between cause and effect. Of course booming economies suck in immigrants. Who else will sweep the floors and cook the meals?
He’s the sort of bien pensant idiot to whom the inhabitants of Dewsbury are either invisible or transformed in his imagination into IT workers.
You know what, it probably is different in the sticks or the shires or wherever and perhaps immigration there has been an unmitigated disaster. Or maybe it’s just the unsuccessful and unintelligent needing someone to blame. Whatever, within the north circular you’ll be extremely hard pressed to find someone sharing your views. And since we drive the economy and nobody else seems to be stepping up to help out I sincerely doubt Cameron and co will be making any changes soon, intelligent chaps that they are.
You pal with your arrogant writing off of the vast majority of the British population just as long as your house of cards doesn’t fall over really piss me off. It’s the like of your kind that has caused us “in the sticks” as your so kindly put it a great deal of harm, loss and disgust. Put a wall up around the shit hole, and let’s see how you survive without our food, water, electricity.
“maybe it’s just the unsuccessful and unintelligent needing someone to blame… within the north circular you’ll be extremely hard pressed to find someone sharing your views… we drive the economy and nobody else seems to be stepping up to help…”
All the confirmation you will ever need of the arrogance and condescension of a certain type of southerner. Just because you live inside the M25 – which I would love to turn into a moat – does not give you the right to dismiss the rest of the country. London is not England. Who do you think you are?
Successful Londoners make their money and then get out. They’ve been doing it since Tudor times.
The mugs stay behind, telling each other how vibrant it is. Working to pay the escapees’ dividends.
Troll alert !
vote here ………………….
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
Cockney,
Please see my remarks below & note the footnote re MUMs – Modern Urban Myths.
As a Londoner by birth, upbringing & through various careers, I’m very well aware of ‘London views’. Like the views of a former MP, now a Peer, (whose Party was decimated at the GE just past) who spoke publicly, to the effect, that ‘immigrants and immigration were great because we can exploit them’. It’s true – there are a large number of Metropolitan/Urban dwellers who think like that.
Some of us Londoners are ashamed at that attitude. I write, as mentioned above, as a mongrel who is not too many generations removed, London-wise, from a variety of immigrant statuses. [Statii?]
Do you really think that is the right and acceptable thing to believe and way to behave as human beings in the 21st century? It seems you do. All I can do is hang my head and walk away.
That’s not my point at all, apologies if it came across like that. I’ve come to my view from the balance of the serious economic analysis (I work in a field where this is vital to our business so don’t have the luxury of cherry picking bits which just reinforce my prejudices) and also from my own long personal experience of working in the city and living in various parts of central London.
I think that at the top end immigration has proved vital in reconfiguring the economy pretty successfully over the last couple of decades through, skills, competition, new ideas… Someone gave the example of Japan as a country that’s had success without significant immigration which is true but at least part of the stagnation subsequently can be pinned on the rigidity of the Japanese model.
At the lower end the benefits of the constant flux have been more mixed but in general most people have come off well, including the immigrants. 20-25 years ago massive swathes of London were pretty unpleasant and the place was pretty moribund. Now it’s the best city in the world if you base that on the number of people who want to come here – not sure how better you measure it – with a ramping up of prosperity for everyone. Doesn’t sound like exploitation to me.
I appreciate that people outside London have a much more mixed experience of immigration, but if we draw a hard line under it something has to fill the economic gap or we’re in trouble. Any idea what that might be? Me neither. There is zero evidence that I can see of a country succeeding with a policy of stamping on immigration.
Cockney ‘me old china’ why are you on this site ? Are you on the same ‘clapped out bus’ as ‘Bugs Bunny’ and the rest of the ‘Toons’ promoting this link …….
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
Because I think the BBC has a left wing bias mate. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything posted on here. And because I like a good argument.
“Australia, Canada, New Zealand & the United States ” but were they not basically uninhabited, or at at least sparsely populated and then invaded by people a millennium more advanced than the native populations, with disastrous results for the natives, possibly even these don’t represent a great result for immigration
dd: ‘“Australia, Canada, New Zealand & the United States ” but were they not basically uninhabited,’
Yes, very different conditions to today. Which is probably why Cockney’s oft repeated mantra to the effect that ‘inward migration brings growth’ needs to be examined all the time and may not be true at all.*
That said, I did think of a country that is jam full, has benefited from immigration & continues to do well on the back of it: Singapore. But, BUT, IIRC, their immigration is strictly controlled and limited. So financial sector workers do their two or three years and have to leave, unless in exceptional circumstances they choose & get permission to remain.
Could be wrong on that or my info may be outdated. Things change fast. Any comments?
(* A Modern Urban Myth?)
Cockney ‘me old china’ . If as you state, “I think that at the top end immigration has proved vital in reconfiguring the economy pretty successfully over the last couple of decades through, skills, competition, new ideas… “etc , perhaps immigrants should be sent to the parts of the world that need their skills and success ie, all parts of Africa and the Middle East ? Perhaps then they would not need our continuous aid ?
PS ‘Cockney’ , I don’t think you are a true cockney .
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
Not unless the sound of the Bow Bells stretched to Barnet General in the 1970s, no.
PS unless your parents were particularly cruel I don’t think that’s your real name, nor do I think that you partook in Welsh agricultural riots in the mid 19th century, so we’re in the same boat name wise.
Well yeah, but nobody wants to go there. Bummer for them. In the meantime I guess we’d better just continue to enjoy the benefits ourselves.
100% agree, and it is also byond my comprehension as to how it should have arrived so. In the begining there was the end! As the wise saying says- ‘When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty. Nazi/Fascisim is where it began, and where after WW2 those that had supported the Nazis continued to develop the structure & development of the European Union as is now. However did they suspect an invasion of Muslims and others from Asia/Africa, I beleive not. Now they are caught in place they did not design which may advance their collapse.
tarian,
My I add that this evil body known as ISIS are the Nazis and ‘black shirts’ of today, Just as in the thirty’s, not one nation is standing up to them. So called ‘British’ traitors are leaving this country every day proving their high treason.
actually generally just to gdp, their not keen on gdp per capita
These are unwanted invaders whose only interest is to take what is ours. Stop calling them immicunts.
What is ours by dint of our own efforts and those of our ancestors.
Ancestors who would be totally disgusted and appalled by the behaviour of the white population of the UK since 1945.
These people should be given a choice boat, plane or hole in the ground.
Plan part one. Get rid of the treasonous whites.
Plan part two. Having got rid of the traitors, start the ethnic cleansing. It is them or us, our “leaders” are the scum of the earth and no loss whatsoever.
The UK began the industrial and scientific revolutions. We were the most advanced country in the world for many years. All achieved with next to zero immigrants. A number of British Jews did make significant contributions to science, and continue to do so.
We do not need the invaders, we do not want the invaders.
We cannot afford the invaders.
Time to enrich the soil of the UK in particular and Western Europe in general with blood of the unnecessary. Then we can breathe our own air again with our heads held high.
That’s because as all the lefties pointed out during the election debates. The massive increase in immigrates to over 30,000 per year for the past 15 years has had no impact on housing, schools, doctors or hospitals. These people then tell us that commuting to work by car instead of cycling is the reason for polar ice caps melting and hence polar bears dying. So I’ll treat what they say with a pinch of salt. A bit like them calling the Malaysian tribe blaming nudity for earthquakes. Has about the same level of scientific reasoning
‘…it’s not the way you’d want the education system to work’.
That is such a typical BBC statement, as if they know there is some easy and obvious solution. Yet they never define what the root cause of the problem is, because we all know it’s too much of an inconvenient truth for their immigration narrative to bear.
IMO, once you start justifying our ownership of this country by bringing in references to Angles, Saxons, Celts, Vikings, Hugenots etc, you’re well on your way to losing the argument. We are all immigrants if you go back far enough. It becomes relative.
My argument, for what it’s worth, is that this country is for all practical purposes a European one, culturally and historically. Most of us were quite happy with that and, accordingly, it should not have been changed so dramatically after 1945 because, simply put, WE DID NOT WANT IT TO. That, IMO, is the only argument that matters.
I will not fall over backwards to justify my choices according to parameters set by the BBC, or anyone else.
Tend to agree. I find it outrageous that people from cultures which are extremely well represented in other parts of the world come to the UK, knowing that its heritage is alien to them, and claim victimhood on the basis of their minority status here.
I know Spain well, and Seville in particular. They will not ‘fall over backwards’, to use your phrase, to justify their way of life to outsiders. Perhaps their history has something to do with it. British people should adopt a less apologetic, more robust attitude.
The SNP say they welcome all immigrants to the UK knowing that they get a significantly proportinally smaller amount than England do. (Scottish Government incompetence no doubt).
It would be great if 10 million English went to live North of the Border and swamp the 6 million native Scots. Would the SNP be as welcoming then? Hmmm!
proportionately
8% of the World is white, 92% is effnik, we are the minority.
I was last night watching a BBC bio of Otis Redding, a talent and fine person by all accounts, taken way too young.
Everyone interviewed, from bandmates (some white and clearly real pioneers in their own country) to label bosses to a still sharp, fun wife and thoughtful daughter were a credit to his legacy.
There was a fair chunk devoted to his tour(s) of the UK, and I was struck by how well this country and its people came out of it, of course on the heels of positive behaviour with black soldiers during the war.
The interviewees were fulsome in praise for how open the welcome and support from small shops to gigs. In fact the only institutional issue appeared to be the playing their records, carried out by pirate stations as the BBC wasn’t keen.
Made me wonder where things took less healthy turns, as clearly my parents and my (youthful) generation had no real issues at all. And still don’t if folk approach our culture with hands out in welcome and appreciation for hands back in greeting, vs. demands to change to suit.
Easy to assimilate, appreciate and respect – and reciprocate – when it’s a few, much more difficult when the numbers reach the millions, which they had not yet done at the time of his death.
I suggest also, that as an American, he was not widely different in cultural or linguistic terms.
…and before ‘multiculturalism’ was invented. Nothing has done more to encourage separatism in this country.
The basic premise is that EU migrants pay more into the tax system (those who work) than they take out (those who don’t work).
It would be easier to say there are more EU migrants working than unemployed.
But – as I’ve regurgitated so many times over the last year or so in various formats – there is a price to pay for accommodating so many migrants. To come to the conclusion that because EU migrants pay more into the system than they take out therefore they are a benefit to the UK, is actually a good argument to ship millions more migrants over!
Of course, we all know the problems that mass migration cause, but I think those who spout these misleading statistics should be held to account.
Sadly, this influx of migrants will not stop until living in Britain is as bad as living in those countries where migrants come from.
I can’t see any option but to vote to leave the EU in the referendum. I don’t care what anyone tells me about the negative effects on the economy, I’d rather be poor and live happily.
there are lots of countries not in the eu that are doing quite nicely thank you
“Husain, an immigrant herself, ”
She was born in Northhampton for fucks sake.