Send them to live next door to remainers

[sasguru]

There is a reason people claim to be Muslims in prison so I would take that statistic with a massive pinch of salt.

What's the reason, protection from bumming?

[SueEllen]

Provided this is true I thought this a bit of an eye opener:

"According to a Labour Force Survey estimate, the total number of Muslims in Great Britain in 2008 was 2,422,000, around 4 per cent of the total population.[123] Between 2004 and 2008, the Muslim population grew by more than 500,000.[123] In 2010, The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life estimated 2,869,000 Muslims in Great Britain.[124] The largest age-bracket within the British Muslim population were those under the age of 4, at 301,000 in September 2008.[123] The Muslim Council of Britain and the Islamic Forum of Europe are the umbrellas organisations for many local, regional and specialist Islamic organisations in the United Kingdom, although it is disputed how representative this organisation is of British Muslims as a whole.

Muslims are by far the poorest religious community in the UK. For comparison, the median net wealth for Jews stands at £422 000, Sikhs at £229 000, Christians at £223 000 and Hindus at £206 000 while for Muslims the figure stands at £42 000.[125]

Muslims also happen to be the most disproportionately represented religious group facing arrest, trial and imprisonment, with 13.1% of prisoners being Muslims while the community represents only 4% of those aged 15 years or older within the general population.[126]"

Religion in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

There is a reason people claim to be Muslims in prison so I would take that statistic with a massive pinch of salt.

[sasguru]

. We have added 10% more population and 20-30% more lower paid workers that higher rate tax payers have to subsidise (before anyone goes off on one its reasonable the higher paid should subsidise the lower paid ones its just a question of numbers).

But you're forgetting that this is a complex economy, people just don't live in their bubbles.
The missus and I work full time and have relied on, and still rely on, cleaners, nannies, gardeners .
Without these lower paid workers, many highly paid workers would not be able to work and add value in the economy and pay the high taxes that are necessary for the country as a whole to fund its public services.
And in terms of the tax we as a household pay, I think not only do we subsidise those working for us but a whole bunch more.

[The_Equalizer]

according to the ONS until you earn £40K you aren't a net contributor. Even if migrants take bottom end jobs and double the pool of people paid below £40k they still are an effective drain. We have added 10% more population and 20-30% more lower paid workers that higher rate tax payers have to subsidise (before anyone goes off on one its reasonable the higher paid should subsidise the lower paid ones its just a question of numbers).

Provided this is true I thought this a bit of an eye opener:

"According to a Labour Force Survey estimate, the total number of Muslims in Great Britain in 2008 was 2,422,000, around 4 per cent of the total population.[123] Between 2004 and 2008, the Muslim population grew by more than 500,000.[123] In 2010, The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life estimated 2,869,000 Muslims in Great Britain.[124] The largest age-bracket within the British Muslim population were those under the age of 4, at 301,000 in September 2008.[123] The Muslim Council of Britain and the Islamic Forum of Europe are the umbrellas organisations for many local, regional and specialist Islamic organisations in the United Kingdom, although it is disputed how representative this organisation is of British Muslims as a whole.

Muslims are by far the poorest religious community in the UK. For comparison, the median net wealth for Jews stands at £422 000, Sikhs at £229 000, Christians at £223 000 and Hindus at £206 000 while for Muslims the figure stands at £42 000.[125]

Muslims also happen to be the most disproportionately represented religious group facing arrest, trial and imprisonment, with 13.1% of prisoners being Muslims while the community represents only 4% of those aged 15 years or older within the general population.[126]"

Religion in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

[vetran]

All the evidence is that migrants don't lower the lowest wages by much, particulalry as there's a minimum wage.
But I agree that immigration was not controlled properly under Labour.
Free movement can be curtailed by requiring bureaucratic hoops.
I've worked in Switzerland recently and it's not easy to do the paperwork, plus for the first 5 years (I believe) if you don't have a job, you don't have the right to stay. Now this seems acceptable to the EU.

But whatever the benefits or not of immigration, the common man will be affected by permanently higher prices and fewer job opportunities as the econoimy shrinks/has permanently lower growth. It is unrealistic to think (hope?) that Britains weak, indebted, mainly services economy will be unaffected by Brexit.

according to the ONS until you earn £40K you aren't a net contributor. Even if migrants take bottom end jobs and double the pool of people paid below £40k they still are an effective drain. We have added 10% more population and 20-30% more lower paid workers that higher rate tax payers have to subsidise (before anyone goes off on one its reasonable the higher paid should subsidise the lower paid ones its just a question of numbers).

[vetran]

You mean when there was high unemployment in the 80's and 90's.

the benefits were far less restrictive.

People need to be desperate and plentiful supply to be abused by zero hour contracts. In the 80s I worked for agencies on effective zero hour contracts and was frequently treated & paid better than staff because there weren't enough people who wanted to work.

I never had any trouble finding work neither did my mates with no qualifications they did however use benefits as a feather bed to work out of.

[sasguru]

Certainly it will benefit the common man most.

Basic maths, you do not raise an average by adding more of average quality. Migrants do increase the nation's wealth but, if you then divide that increased wealth by a similarly increased population, nobody is any better off. Migrants create their own demands. No point having more doctors if you similarly increase the number of patients or more house builders if the houses are just meeting increased demand due to immigration. The downsides of free migration are huge, pressures on infrastructure, schools, housing, roads etc. which we cannot possibly expand at the same rate. Some things, like our diminishing countryside, cannot be increased to match.

People spout this stuff about hard working migrants taking jobs Brits don't want to do but competition is not selective, it necessarily makes job finding more difficult for everyone at the bottom. It is the businesses owners that benefit, they reap more profits with cheaper staff and the costs of supporting low paid workers who don't pay enough tax or NI to match their cost to the state are picked up by the rest of us. Migration is not a sensible solution to an ageing population or supposed "lazy Brits". Migrants get old too and will end up just as lazy if we don't fix the causes.

As for the USSR, a better comparison is Yugoslavia. Look how that turned out, forty years did not eliminate the national differences. The Zealots in the EU are repeating the same mistake, pushing ahead much too fast and putting their ideals above the real concerns of ordinary people.

All the evidence is that migrants don't lower the lowest wages by much, particulalry as there's a minimum wage.
But I agree that immigration was not controlled properly under Labour.
Free movement can be curtailed by requiring bureaucratic hoops.
I've worked in Switzerland recently and it's not easy to do the paperwork, plus for the first 5 years (I believe) if you don't have a job, you don't have the right to stay. Now this seems acceptable to the EU.

But whatever the benefits or not of immigration, the common man will be affected by permanently higher prices and fewer job opportunities as the econoimy shrinks/has permanently lower growth. It is unrealistic to think (hope?) that Britains weak, indebted, mainly services economy will be unaffected by Brexit.

[BlasterBates]

it really doesn't. Look it up.

They found no one was willing to take it up because there was no shortage of jobs or benefits. Things have changed, can you tell me why?

You mean when there was high unemployment in the 80's and 90's.

[xoggoth]

Certainly it will benefit the common man most.

Basic maths, you do not raise an average by adding more of average quality. Migrants do increase the nation's wealth but, if you then divide that increased wealth by a similarly increased population, nobody is any better off. Migrants create their own demands. No point having more doctors if you similarly increase the number of patients or more house builders if the houses are just meeting increased demand due to immigration. The downsides of free migration are huge, pressures on infrastructure, schools, housing, roads etc. which we cannot possibly expand at the same rate. Some things, like our diminishing countryside, cannot be increased to match.

People spout this stuff about hard working migrants taking jobs Brits don't want to do but competition is not selective, it necessarily makes job finding more difficult for everyone at the bottom. It is the businesses owners that benefit, they reap more profits with cheaper staff and the costs of supporting low paid workers who don't pay enough tax or NI to match their cost to the state are picked up by the rest of us. Migration is not a sensible solution to an ageing population or supposed "lazy Brits". Migrants get old too and will end up just as lazy if we don't fix the causes.

As for the USSR, a better comparison is Yugoslavia. Look how that turned out, forty years did not eliminate the national differences. The Zealots in the EU are repeating the same mistake, pushing ahead much too fast and putting their ideals above the real concerns of ordinary people.

[vetran]

It suits the carp you are shouting to a tee like below.


This is nothing to do with the EU but everything to do with UK government policy over the decades.

And I was around when a well-known retailer thought this brand "new" method of working was a great one. Oddly they couldn't find anyone at the time to take the roles as people had sufficient employment protection then.

it really doesn't. Look it up.

They found no one was willing to take it up because there was no shortage of jobs or benefits. Things have changed, can you tell me why?