Immigrants go home ...

pragmatic

So a 3.5 % rise in immigration over almost 10 years. And a 3% rise in economic output over the last couple of years. It would seem immigration may be mirroring the economy according to these figures.

BISHI

In your world you might be able to mix and match apples and oranges but back to the land of facts that is a rather unusual line of argument you've taken there.
Take arbitrarily one years output and apply that to a decade of population change.  Would you have made the same link for 2008/2009 when GDP collapsed?  Sheesh

It is true that GDP is past the 2008 peek.
It is true that GDP per capita is no where near the 2008 peak, United Kingdom GDP per capita | 1960-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar

GDP per capita is generally a better indication of the living standards of the average person which unlike GDP isn't just concerned with a summation of output without referencing any underlying changes.  Add in the inflationary pressures (RPI not this CPI junk) since 2008 and it isn't as great as the GDP figure might first look.  Non of that takes into account the human cost/pressures on usage/availability of services, housing, infrastructure or social cohesion.

pragmatic

Ok, so the UK is the best performing economy of all developed economies in a region where economic output has atrophied since the downturn. Are you saying that -
A- this is not going to act as a magnet to lower performing economies .
B- does not reflect the increased requirement for labour reflected by the apparent levels of productivity the government would have you believe.
C- using data from the start and the end of a 9 year period might not reflect very different criteria that are entirely dependent on economic conditions at both times.

Cliff

Are you saying that GDP has grown despite immigrants?
or
that they had a crystal ball and could see growth appearing where little over a year ago it was all doom and gloom and that's what attracted them?
or
it might be a bit more complicated than that?

Immigration has no doubt paid a great part in boosting GDP, but that figure doesn't reflect so many other real tangible effects I'm nor sure it is a legitimate one to use at this juncture.  Before mass immigration where population was pretty much the same year on year like say the 80's it made sense, now less so, too much is shifting in the sands below it.

There are many highly skilled, high earning people from all around the world, no one has an issue with that, if we get too many doctors (of good quality) I can't see anyone complaining.

On the other hand companies going abroad to find staff for a sandwich factory or a next warehouse are not going to be net contributors once you take into account all the in work benefits.  Then in addition still paying that number of jobs of the 2million unemployed to stay on the dole.

Maybe these businesses are not viable, they certainly shouldn't be running on taxpayer employment based subsidies for people who have never paid UK tax.  Or the native brits we've invested at least 11 years of state education, to then tell them which day they sign on as the guy from eastern Europe has you beat, in fact to spare your blushes we're not even gonna tell you there was a job in the first place.

johntheexpat

It is not the media to blame. Let me make a few points with might explain why it has become a hot topic.
We have had significant immigration from outside the EU for a long time now leading to whole cities and towns becoming almost a country within a country. These areas have no inclination to integrate - don't blame the press. They are happy to keep within their cultural and religious traditions. That went on under Labours watch and middle Englanders, although they probably didn't think it was a good thing, went along with the government as it didn't affect them directly.

Very recently we are seeing large numbers of EU immigrants. They are settling in many small traditionally white English towns, some by the seaside, some in the countryside. They keep on coming. It is not uncommon for the residents to complain that they are being swamped. Remember schools hospitals housing and other social services were not built in advance ready for the infux. Jobs have been affected and the towns have changed significantly. You can walk down the High street and English is not the main language any more.

This is why UKIP is now a significant player simply because the major parties have ignored the electorate. They continue with the mantra that it is a good thing. (which it may be for the exchequer)

Many in England do feel uncomfortable with the thought that UKIP encourages support from the far right, and maybe that was the case. However the Labour party and now the Tories have consistently failed to listen to the electorate. Normal decent families who are living in small towns in middle England have had enough.
If you want to blame someone for the rise of UKIP, look to Blair, Brown and now Cameron.

BISHI

Of course it's more complicated, but the UK is at present a better performing, and in the recent past, a lesser failing,  European economy - primarily because we don't have the disadvantage of the Euro.
If we had rose and crashed as hard as Ireland the direction of travel would have mirrored there back in the direction of the continent.
I think what Next has done is wrong but is nevertheless reflective of the contemporary employment patterns being encouraged by the government for the lowest paid- and if companies cannot 'afford' to employ workers without tax payer subsidies then quite honestly they should be allowed to fail.

johntheexpat

So, just to absolutely clarify things.  Which set of immigrants are the bigger problem for the UK?  The economically active and well motivated and generally well educated Europeans who want a job (the minority), or the majority of immigrants who come from outside the EU, who are basically just desperate to get away from poverty and hunger and offer very little chance of ever becoming valuable economic assets for the country?  The UK seems to want to put a stop to immigrants who would benefit the economy and continue with an unabated flood of third world refugees.

Personally, I would work with Europe to halt the flood coming across the Mediterranean and tighten up on the benefits on offer to Europeans who don't want to work.

But then you could argue that I have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo as it is, but I couldn't possibly comment.

loz

And the evidence for that is what?

Cliff

With European migration, you cannot choose who comes. (or how many)

With migration from outside the UK you can decide whether to issue a visa or not depending on whether the person will be a drain on the state and review the qualifications to decide whether the person with that particular skill set is needed or not. (can be controlled)

johntheexpat

And how many non-EU economic migrants are actually ejected from the UK?  Whatever controls there may be in place, the numbers clearly show that non EU immigrants out-number EU migrants, but Cameron isn't talking about stopping non EU immigrants, only EU immigrants.  Now my point is that EU migrants are well motivated etc etc and its much more realistic to assume that they will be an economic asset.  But they are the ones he is talking about controlling, while the non EU immigrant numbers are higher.  What is the problem with DC standing there are saying that non EU immigration will be absolutely hammered down?