I thought ALL parties want to see jobs created in the uk, and i thought everyone wants jobs created in the uk.
?? Does that mean they support the free movement that corporates and big business support. You do not need any immigration to create jobs, it just may on occasion make it easier however it also means that new jobs created may go to new immigrants as they are the ones that corporates and big business like primarily because in the main they are cheaper.
but what is the point of importing 10 people so they can do 10 jobs ?, is there an international competition to have the largest population
We like most developed nations have had years of rising life expectancy and falling birth rates as such we are facing the problem of having increasingly fewer young working age people and more old retired people. The issue is the support ratio workers to non-working elderly is growing and set to continue growing. We need immigrants to increase the working age population. Simply raising retirement age by a few years and having more children is insufficient. As people get older their health starts to falter and increasing numbers cease to be fit for work and increasing the number of young people by having more babies takes too long for the babies to grow into working taxpayers as we need workers now and over the next couple of decades to fill a growing void in our population demographics.
This is a problem a lot of the developed world is facing so yes we are trying to get young adult working immigrants ideally ones that are going to have plenty of children, because we need them to ensure our financial future. Without them the support ratio will grow and we will face a dilemma of either falling living standards for the young due to the tax burden of the old, or falling living standards of the old. And worse substantially falling living standards over a sustained period endangers social and political stability.
We like most developed nations have had years of rising life expectancy and falling birth rates as such we are facing the problem of having increasingly fewer young working age people and more old retired people. The issue is the support ratio workers to non-working elderly is growing and set to continue growing. We need immigrants as a stop gap as simply raising retirement age by a few years and having more children is insufficient. As people get older their health starts to falter and increasing numbers cease to be fit for work and increasing the number of young people by having more babies takes too long as babies take time to grow into working taxpaying adults.
This is a problem a lot of the developed world is facing so yes we are trying to get young adult working immigrants ideally ones that are going to have plenty of children, because we need them to ensure our financial future.Without them the support ratio will grow and we will face a dilemma of either falling living standards for the young due to the tax burden of the old, or falling living standards of the old. And worse falling living standards over a sustained period endangers social and political stability.
Labour's old chestnut, which they have since had the sense to drop - when it was pointed out that immigrants grow old too - so, even more is needed etc. etc.Whatever a country's physical population limit is, particularly with 'sustainability' in mind - it is there. Ane we already have one of the highest population density statistic in Europe.
So - you better put your thinking cap on again.
Without them the support ratio will grow and we will face a dilemma of either falling living standards for the young due to the tax burden of the old, or falling living standards of the old. And worse substantially falling living standards over a sustained period endangers social and political stability.
As does an unbalanced immigration policy, especially if there's no real social integration. The tax burden of the old is also complicated by the balance between public & private sector employees. So everyone eventually gets some kind of basic state pension. Public sector employees also get an unfunded pension paid out of tax. Private sector workers don't have the same pension burden.
Then if the young aren't working and instead relying on benefits, well, there's a bit of a problem.
Labour's old chestnut, which they have since had the sense to drop - when it was pointed out that immigrants grow old too - so, even more is needed etc. Whatever a country's physical population limit is, particularly with 'sustainability' in mind - it is there. Ane we already have one of the highest population density statistic in Europe.
So - you better put your thinking cap on again.
People have not become immortal we do not need an ever growing population going forward, we just need to fill the void we have in the near future with immigrants, and get our birth rate up so we will have a viable support ratio workers to old people. What we have is a problem in the near future due to a hole in our population demographics caused by a dip in birth rates and a rise in life expectancy. And it is not some Labour old chestnut it is an internationally recognized issued across the developed world with the likes of the UN having papers and projections, etc.
People have not become immortal we do not need an ever growing population going forward, we just need to fill the void we have in the near future with immigrants, and get our birth rate up so we will have a viable support ratio workers to old people. What we have is a problem in the near future due to a hole in our population demographics caused by a dip in birth rates and a rise in life expectancy. And it is not some Labour old chestnut it is an internationally recognized issued across the developed world with the likes of the UN having papers and projections, etc.
No we don't.....and immortality has nothing to do with it.The larger the population, the higher the number of senior citizens to be expected - but your recipe, is to continue to increase the population - and thereby continue to increase the population.
It is a bonkers philosophy - which has already been exposed.
Zero population growth is now being predicted as the future policy......as even the UN are concerned with the ever growing global population increase.
No he didn't. What he said was that he felt that companies should be able to discriminate in favour of British workers, regardless of colour or ethnic origin. He didn't say anything about race as such
And how would that work?
Example. My name is Rabia Patel. I am British. I apply for a job. Do you think it's likely I will be discriminated against?
but what is the point of importing 10 people so they can do 10 jobs ?, is there an international competition to have the largest population
The point is that the business concerned can develop, grow, make profit and pay tax as a result of taking on those 10 people. The employees, though foreign, will pay UK tax and spend money locally, benefitting the economy.
If you cap skilled worker visas, as UKIP intends to do, you will soon find companies complaining they can't get staff they need to expand.
It's not about getting a big population, or mass immigration as an aim, it's about free movement of labour. If you can't recruit locally because the skills don't exist then you have to recruit abroad.
The point is that the business concerned can develop, grow, make profit and pay tax as a result of taking on those 10 people. The employees, though foreign, will pay UK tax and spend money locally, benefitting the economy.
If you cap skilled worker visas, as UKIP intends to do, you will soon find companies complaining they can't get staff they need to expand.
It's not about getting a big population, or mass immigration as an aim, it's about free movement of labour. If you can't recruit locally because the skills don't exist then you have to recruit abroad.
Most of the 'skills' coming in are effectively unskilled as over 2 million migrants work in the unskilled sector (who knows about the unskilled in the illegal economy). Some 60% of the unskilled migrants are non-EU. Of course having to recruit abroad means that more often than not an inability to get skills locally means an inability to get the skills locally at the level of pay the company wishes to pay. Which is not the same as a skills shortage at all.
Having some 50,000 skilled personnel coming in per annum would seem to perfectly satisfactory and it is incumbent on Government to plan so that the population is educated to meet in general the skills forecast as necessary.
It is also true that if you cannot find a toilet cleaner at minimum wage then that is not a carte blanche to seek a toilet cleaner from abroad it should mean you offer an increased remuneration until the position is filled by an unemployed UK citizen many of whom did exactly those jobs in the past and many of whom still do those jobs now.
No we don't.....and immortality has nothing to do with it.The larger the population, the higher the number of senior citizens to be expected - but your recipe, is to continue to increase the population - and thereby continue to increase the population.
No it is not. The aim is keep support levels as a sustainable level and that does not require the population to continuously grow. We need immigrants because we had a baby boom (who are now getting old and now expected to live far longer than anticipated) and we then had a drop in birth rates below replacement level.
The dependency ratio was 300 pensioners per 1,000 workers in the 1970s. The prediction with immigration (about 180,000 a year primarily of working age) is we end up with a dependency ratio of over 495 pensioners per 1,000 workers by 2051, hence the need even with immigration to raise the retirement age to bring that down to 343 pensioners per 1,000 workers. And the aim of getting more working age people into work, the aim of full employment, and employment of the disabled, etc. We will need as many people working as we can get in the coming decades. But it is just a demographic blip in the long term dependency ratios fall back.
It is a bonkers philosophy - which has already been exposed.
Zero population growth is now being predicted as the future policy......as even the UN are concerned with the ever growing global population increase.
Global population is a separate issue to national demographic age breakdowns and support levels. Although one of the reason for the increased global population is the increase in life expectancy of older people.
Most of the 'skills' coming in are effectively unskilled as over 2 million migrants work in the unskilled sector (who knows about the unskilled in the illegal economy). Some 60% of the unskilled migrants are non-EU. Of course having to recruit abroad means that more often than not an inability to get skills locally means an inability to get the skills locally at the level of pay the company wishes to pay. Which is not the same as a skills shortage at all.
Having some 50,000 skilled personnel coming in per annum would seem to perfectly satisfactory and it is incumbent on Government to plan so that the population is educated to meet in general the skills forecast as necessary.
It is also true that if you cannot find a toilet cleaner at minimum wage then that is not a carte blanche to seek a toilet cleaner from abroad it should mean you offer an increased remuneration until the position is filled by an unemployed UK citizen many of whom did exactly those jobs in the past and many of whom still do those jobs now.
How do you know 50,000 skilled people per year is enough? The corresponding US H-1B Visa scheme is so heavily oversubscribed that the quota is fulfilled before the opening date each year. All those surplus applications have jobs to go to. Businesses are the only people who know how many they need to employ. I'm wouldn't have any problem UKIP's points based visa system, but capping numbers is senseless if there is economic demand for people to come here.
It doesn't really matter whether the company needs skilled or unskillled workers in the example I quoted. If they can't get unskilled workers for whatever reason and foreign workers can do the job then they should be allowed to do it. Immigration should really be controlled by the labour market, not government interference. The government should set the entry criteria required, which may well include having a job offer in place. Caps are counter productive, unless you are obsessed with the number of foreigners coming here.
Down the road from me a huge house has an even bigger banner,wooden poster thing saying vote UKIP. I have this urge to throw something at it every time I drive past. I know its free speech and all that Jazz, but Do they realise how ridiculousley stupid they look having that up in their garden.
Down the road from me a huge house has an even bigger banner,wooden poster thing saying vote UKIP. I have this urge to throw something at it every time I drive past. I know its free speech and all that Jazz, but Do they realise how ridiculousley stupid they look having that up in their garden.
I know what you mean. These elections bring out the worst in us don't they. Good job they don't come around very often.
Down the road from me a huge house has an even bigger banner,wooden poster thing saying vote UKIP. I have this urge to throw something at it every time I drive past. I know its free speech and all that Jazz, but Do they realise how ridiculousley stupid they look having that up in their garden.
You should go and set fire to it. If you see any houses with a St George's Cross draped over them on your way there, hold your breath and take a few photos to post here.
Labour and the Tories are a mish mash of each other.
The Lib dems don't stand a chance.
I've never voted before, i'm 34 years old and I'm sick of how the country has turned out over the last 20 years. I'm surprised there's older people than me, especially pensioners, who are not voting for UKIP, considering the amount of change they've seen in their lifetime compared to back in their day - the good old days.
Younger people don't know any different, yet the Scots want 16-17 year olds to be able to vote? Ha! They have no life experience. If it was up to me I'd say the minimum age should be 25 to vote no matter how educated you are.
As for racism. Compared to before the 90's the racism of today is literally nothing like what it was back then. Right now if someone says something racist it is almost always purely as a bit of banter - not extreme. It was so different before the 90's, these days its literally like almost everyone has gone soft as they are so easily offended over petty words.
I want people to talk normally again, not politically correct and professionally that is two faced, cut throat, talk behind your back, do anything to win one over on you - makes me laugh in today's world when elitism is seen as wrong yet its probably more rife than its ever been.
I'm wouldn't have any problem UKIP's points based visa system, but capping numbers is senseless if there is economic demand for people to come here.
There is plenty of British people wanting to work who can not get into work.
Businesses would rather employ minimum wage than the true value of a job.
More and more wages over more types of work will decline because of this, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Businesses own the media, the media influence us to believe what they want us to know, politicians are just muppets for the businesses who give them back-handers in some round-about way.
Keep voting for Labour, Tories or Lib dems and nothing will change for the better.
Down the road from me a huge house has an even bigger banner,wooden poster thing saying vote UKIP. I have this urge to throw something at it every time I drive past. I know its free speech and all that Jazz, but Do they realise how ridiculousley stupid they look having that up in their garden.
Their garden, their right to display election boards, quite within the law. If you don't like it, don't look.
If UKIP don't want to be seen as racist, it really dosen't help when Nigel is on two nationwide debates on TV and somehow manages to bring foreigners and immigration up in every single issue. He claims that no one wants to have a balanced discussion about it yet all he shows is he's completely unbalanced about it too.
How do you know 50,000 skilled people per year is enough? The corresponding US H-1B Visa scheme is so heavily oversubscribed that the quota is fulfilled before the opening date each year. All those surplus applications have jobs to go to. Businesses are the only people who know how many they need to employ. I'm wouldn't have any problem UKIP's points based visa system, but capping numbers is senseless if there is economic demand for people to come here.
It doesn't really matter whether the company needs skilled or unskillled workers in the example I quoted. If they can't get unskilled workers for whatever reason and foreign workers can do the job then they should be allowed to do it. Immigration should really be controlled by the labour market, not government interference. The government should set the entry criteria required, which may well include having a job offer in place. Caps are counter productive, unless you are obsessed with the number of foreigners coming here.
Up to 50,000 was more than enough for many decades.
It matters very much if the company requires skilled or unskilled workers, if they can obtain either at a cheaper rate than a British National then they will do that so the Government responsibility is to encourage companies to employ UK Nationals in the first instance (and if necessary at wages greater than they initially offered). If they have trouble obtaining UK Nationals even then then it is the Government responsibility to encourage training of UK Nationals by those companies. If a company can pick up cheap trained staff then they will do it and realistically cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the UK so it is the Government's duty to ensure that businesses, both large and small, operate to the benefit of themselves individually and collectively in the interests of the UK. I would have thought that was sensible and realistically a left wing ideal.
Comments
Does that mean Labour and the Unions wish to see an end to mass immigration and the uncontrolled immigration from the EU?
I thought ALL parties want to see jobs created in the uk, and i thought everyone wants jobs created in the uk.
?? Does that mean they support the free movement that corporates and big business support. You do not need any immigration to create jobs, it just may on occasion make it easier however it also means that new jobs created may go to new immigrants as they are the ones that corporates and big business like primarily because in the main they are cheaper.
Well counties encourge, bribe, use incentives, offer best deals to get buisness to open plants, factory, and buisnesses in general in thier country.
This is a problem a lot of the developed world is facing so yes we are trying to get young adult working immigrants ideally ones that are going to have plenty of children, because we need them to ensure our financial future. Without them the support ratio will grow and we will face a dilemma of either falling living standards for the young due to the tax burden of the old, or falling living standards of the old. And worse substantially falling living standards over a sustained period endangers social and political stability.
Labour's old chestnut, which they have since had the sense to drop - when it was pointed out that immigrants grow old too - so, even more is needed etc. etc.Whatever a country's physical population limit is, particularly with 'sustainability' in mind - it is there. Ane we already have one of the highest population density statistic in Europe.
So - you better put your thinking cap on again.
As does an unbalanced immigration policy, especially if there's no real social integration. The tax burden of the old is also complicated by the balance between public & private sector employees. So everyone eventually gets some kind of basic state pension. Public sector employees also get an unfunded pension paid out of tax. Private sector workers don't have the same pension burden.
Then if the young aren't working and instead relying on benefits, well, there's a bit of a problem.
No we don't.....and immortality has nothing to do with it.The larger the population, the higher the number of senior citizens to be expected - but your recipe, is to continue to increase the population - and thereby continue to increase the population.
It is a bonkers philosophy - which has already been exposed.
Zero population growth is now being predicted as the future policy......as even the UN are concerned with the ever growing global population increase.
And how would that work?
Example. My name is Rabia Patel. I am British. I apply for a job. Do you think it's likely I will be discriminated against?
If you cap skilled worker visas, as UKIP intends to do, you will soon find companies complaining they can't get staff they need to expand.
It's not about getting a big population, or mass immigration as an aim, it's about free movement of labour. If you can't recruit locally because the skills don't exist then you have to recruit abroad.
Most of the 'skills' coming in are effectively unskilled as over 2 million migrants work in the unskilled sector (who knows about the unskilled in the illegal economy). Some 60% of the unskilled migrants are non-EU. Of course having to recruit abroad means that more often than not an inability to get skills locally means an inability to get the skills locally at the level of pay the company wishes to pay. Which is not the same as a skills shortage at all.
Having some 50,000 skilled personnel coming in per annum would seem to perfectly satisfactory and it is incumbent on Government to plan so that the population is educated to meet in general the skills forecast as necessary.
It is also true that if you cannot find a toilet cleaner at minimum wage then that is not a carte blanche to seek a toilet cleaner from abroad it should mean you offer an increased remuneration until the position is filled by an unemployed UK citizen many of whom did exactly those jobs in the past and many of whom still do those jobs now.
The dependency ratio was 300 pensioners per 1,000 workers in the 1970s. The prediction with immigration (about 180,000 a year primarily of working age) is we end up with a dependency ratio of over 495 pensioners per 1,000 workers by 2051, hence the need even with immigration to raise the retirement age to bring that down to 343 pensioners per 1,000 workers. And the aim of getting more working age people into work, the aim of full employment, and employment of the disabled, etc. We will need as many people working as we can get in the coming decades. But it is just a demographic blip in the long term dependency ratios fall back.
Global population is a separate issue to national demographic age breakdowns and support levels. Although one of the reason for the increased global population is the increase in life expectancy of older people.
It doesn't really matter whether the company needs skilled or unskillled workers in the example I quoted. If they can't get unskilled workers for whatever reason and foreign workers can do the job then they should be allowed to do it. Immigration should really be controlled by the labour market, not government interference. The government should set the entry criteria required, which may well include having a job offer in place. Caps are counter productive, unless you are obsessed with the number of foreigners coming here.
I know what you mean. These elections bring out the worst in us don't they. Good job they don't come around very often.
You should go and set fire to it. If you see any houses with a St George's Cross draped over them on your way there, hold your breath and take a few photos to post here.
The Lib dems don't stand a chance.
I've never voted before, i'm 34 years old and I'm sick of how the country has turned out over the last 20 years. I'm surprised there's older people than me, especially pensioners, who are not voting for UKIP, considering the amount of change they've seen in their lifetime compared to back in their day - the good old days.
Younger people don't know any different, yet the Scots want 16-17 year olds to be able to vote? Ha! They have no life experience. If it was up to me I'd say the minimum age should be 25 to vote no matter how educated you are.
As for racism. Compared to before the 90's the racism of today is literally nothing like what it was back then. Right now if someone says something racist it is almost always purely as a bit of banter - not extreme. It was so different before the 90's, these days its literally like almost everyone has gone soft as they are so easily offended over petty words.
I want people to talk normally again, not politically correct and professionally that is two faced, cut throat, talk behind your back, do anything to win one over on you - makes me laugh in today's world when elitism is seen as wrong yet its probably more rife than its ever been.
Businesses would rather employ minimum wage than the true value of a job.
More and more wages over more types of work will decline because of this, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Businesses own the media, the media influence us to believe what they want us to know, politicians are just muppets for the businesses who give them back-handers in some round-about way.
Keep voting for Labour, Tories or Lib dems and nothing will change for the better.
Their garden, their right to display election boards, quite within the law. If you don't like it, don't look.
Depending how large it was, they may have broken local planning rules.
Up to 50,000 was more than enough for many decades.
It matters very much if the company requires skilled or unskilled workers, if they can obtain either at a cheaper rate than a British National then they will do that so the Government responsibility is to encourage companies to employ UK Nationals in the first instance (and if necessary at wages greater than they initially offered). If they have trouble obtaining UK Nationals even then then it is the Government responsibility to encourage training of UK Nationals by those companies. If a company can pick up cheap trained staff then they will do it and realistically cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the UK so it is the Government's duty to ensure that businesses, both large and small, operate to the benefit of themselves individually and collectively in the interests of the UK. I would have thought that was sensible and realistically a left wing ideal.
Who are you voting for this time then?