Cake and Eat It

Liverpoolphil said:
Thank god for a lot of immigrants-without them the NHS would prob have fallen over by now

The answer to the question will always be whatever angle you are coming from - people do live longer , even golf clubs are coming things due to people living longer and those people living longer will put a strain on the NHS and the increasing population will also put a strain on the NHS - everything is equally to blame but if you constantly look to blame immigration then that will be who some will point the finger at
Click to expand...

And when the problems in the NHS remain after Brexit - which they will as the needs of the current population will remain at the current level as the current population will remain the same even with a massive cut in immigration - who then to blame for the problems. Ah yes. The existing immigrant community. I fear that this finger pointing at the immigrant community is seeding serious social cohesion issues for the future.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Yep those highly trained floor cleaners ,porters , toilet cleaners, cafe staff etc etc all those jobs that seem beneath the people “born and bred” in the UK

The thread is just an extension of the Art 50 thread the OP said he would avoid - but can continue the theme in a separate thread.

Let’s close our borders - non Brits not allowed , let’s keep out all the unclean.

It’s like Farage is on the forum

But don’t worry about the NHS struggling with the population increase - it’s about to get a massive increase in weekly funding which should boost it right up
Click to expand...

yeh right :)
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
It may well be - but it's no less aspirational than the Brexiteer soundbites on the 'Brexit Dividend' that we get assailed with day after day. Maybe when we have left the EU and have £350/week extra to spend, then councils will get the funding they need to build the required infrastructure - because the current population isn't going to go down even if - IF - immigration is cut.

I look forward to the 'Brexit Dividend' delivering the infrastructure required to support and service the existing population
Click to expand...

Deflected to the Brexit £350m... sorry but you appear to not want to accept that the councils have money but just don't want to spend it. Austerity could well do with being ended but don't put all the blame on central govt for lack of infrastructure spending. But that doesn't address local councils creating a shortfall in their spend when they have more than enough money to cover any and all needs.

The "we can't afford to give council workers a decent wage increase" is at best disingenuous, and smacks in some cases of "lets make central govt look like the baddies." Would a Labour council really do that...?
 
Hobbit said:
Deflected to the Brexit £350m... sorry but you appear to not want to accept that the councils have money but just don't want to spend it. Austerity could well do with being ended but don't put all the blame on central govt for lack of infrastructure spending. But that doesn't address local councils creating a shortfall in their spend when they have more than enough money to cover any and all needs.

The "we can't afford to give council workers a decent wage increase" is at best disingenuous, and smacks in some cases of "lets make central govt look like the baddies." Would a Labour council really do that...?
Click to expand...

mmm, though my interaction with local authorities through work and through my school governor role I do not see stock piles of money sitting there that they could spend on say schools but are not. In fact at a conference I was at the other week there were some very gloomy predictions for a lot of local authorities up in Scotland over how little money they will have in the forthcoming years to spend on what many of us would regard as vital services. Do not doubt there was an element of scare mongering, but also am slightly sceptical of the alleged reserves of cash they could use but are not.
 
Hobbit said:
Deflected to the Brexit £350m... sorry but you appear to not want to accept that the councils have money but just don't want to spend it. Austerity could well do with being ended but don't put all the blame on central govt for lack of infrastructure spending. But that doesn't address local councils creating a shortfall in their spend when they have more than enough money to cover any and all needs.

The "we can't afford to give council workers a decent wage increase" is at best disingenuous, and smacks in some cases of "lets make central govt look like the baddies." Would a Labour council really do that...?
Click to expand...

I had no idea that councils had loads of money but don't want to spend it. Doesn't seem to be the case with my County Council - Surrey - who are skint - or at least pleading skintness.

https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/surrey-council-tax-just-went-14253759
 
Hacker Khan said:
mmm, though my interaction with local authorities through work and through my school governor role I do not see stock piles of money sitting there that they could spend on say schools but are not. In fact at a conference I was at the other week there were some very gloomy predictions for a lot of local authorities up in Scotland over how little money they will have in the forthcoming years to spend on what many of us would regard as vital services. Do not doubt there was an element of scare mongering, but also am slightly sceptical of the alleged reserves of cash they could use but are not.
Click to expand...

this article isn't great reading for Scottish Councils.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ves-course-run-two-three-years-deep-snp-cuts/


Moray council is close to going bankrupt according to stv news this year.
 
Hacker Khan said:
mmm, though my interaction with local authorities through work and through my school governor role I do not see stock piles of money sitting there that they could spend on say schools but are not. In fact at a conference I was at the other week there were some very gloomy predictions for a lot of local authorities up in Scotland over how little money they will have in the forthcoming years to spend on what many of us would regard as vital services. Do not doubt there was an element of scare mongering, but also am slightly sceptical of the alleged reserves of cash they could use but are not.
Click to expand...

There are restrictions on what areas councils can spend money. For example, the building of council houses. The current framework for approval for council house building is convoluted to say the least. Councils are having to partner with building firms and housing associations rather than just be able to go to a builder and say "please build me xx homes."

I know its a poor analogy but in business you can run a surplus in one area that the board won't allow you to spend in another area... central govt 'v' local govt.
 
Hobbit said:
There are restrictions on what areas councils can spend money. For example, the building of council houses. The current framework for approval for council house building is convoluted to say the least. Councils are having to partner with building firms and housing associations rather than just be able to go to a builder and say "please build me xx homes."

I know its a poor analogy but in business you can run a surplus in one area that the board won't allow you to spend in another area... central govt 'v' local govt.
Click to expand...

So effectively under the current framework they are working under they are very short of cash in certain areas and are not able to call on whatever reserves they may have in other areas?
 
Hacker Khan said:
So effectively under the current framework they are working under they are very short of cash in certain areas and are not able to call on whatever reserves they may have in other areas?
Click to expand...

Exactly that. The council house thing is a prime example of political doctrine running counter to actual needs. Labour would no doubt love to take the reins off, although they had plenty of chances during Blair's premiership to overturn the mechanisms put in place during Maggie's right to buy period.

You will probably find that capital spend 'v' operational spend, CAPEX 'v' OPEX, has very different rules for councils, and they'll be driven by politics.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Yep those highly trained floor cleaners ,porters , toilet cleaners, cafe staff etc etc all those jobs that seem beneath the people “born and bred” in the UK

The thread is just an extension of the Art 50 thread the OP said he would avoid - but can continue the theme in a separate thread.

Let’s close our borders - non Brits not allowed , let’s keep out all the unclean.

It’s like Farage is on the forum

But don’t worry about the NHS struggling with the population increase - it’s about to get a massive increase in weekly funding which should boost it right up
Click to expand...
What an outlandish reply. Oh Dear!

You make an interesting point though regarding additional funding. We are constantly being told that immigrants are contributing Billions to the exchequer more than they take so we should be rolling in cash to pump into the NHS.
 
SocketRocket said:
What an outlandish reply. Oh Dear!

You make an interesting point though regarding additional funding. We are constantly being told that immigrants are contributing Billions to the exchequer more than they take so we should be rolling in cash to pump into the NHS.
Click to expand...

That'll be all the minimum wage immigrants who are porters, toilet cleaners and cafe staff who because their low wage and their dependents are in receipt of tax credits and child tax credits. Yes they do pay circa £1,500 in tax but, if they have 2 children, can claim £1,800 in child allowance. And then there's the housing benefit...
 
Hobbit said:
That'll be all the minimum wage immigrants who are porters, toilet cleaners and cafe staff who because their low wage and their dependents are in receipt of tax credits and child tax credits. Yes they do pay circa £1,500 in tax but, if they have 2 children, can claim £1,800 in child allowance. And then there's the housing benefit...
Click to expand...

Yup this is often the inconvenient truth. Very few migrants; most of whom are here for economic reasons will contribute more to the UK economy that they will extract as they grow old: the situation being worsened by the cash (largely untaxed and from the black economy) that is sent back to their country of original
 
drdel said:
Yup this is often the inconvenient truth. Very few migrants; most of whom are here for economic reasons will contribute more to the UK economy that they will extract as they grow old: the situation being worsened by the cash (largely untaxed and from the black economy) that is sent back to their country of original
Click to expand...

Kind of a simple sweeping statement, high on emotion but I'd suggest low on evidence, that overlooks the complexities of the situation. http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....s/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
 
Hobbit said:
Exactly that. The council house thing is a prime example of political doctrine running counter to actual needs. Labour would no doubt love to take the reins off, although they had plenty of chances during Blair's premiership to overturn the mechanisms put in place during Maggie's right to buy period.

You will probably find that capital spend 'v' operational spend, CAPEX 'v' OPEX, has very different rules for councils, and they'll be driven by politics.
Click to expand...

So the mega cynic in me says that in the case of housing - council building of new stock using funds from other budgets is not allowed as it would make the Right to Buy scheme less attractive (more housing in any area being a dampener on house price inflation). Just as well I'm not a cynic...sometimes.
 
Hobbit said:
That'll be all the minimum wage immigrants who are porters, toilet cleaners and cafe staff who because their low wage and their dependents are in receipt of tax credits and child tax credits. Yes they do pay circa £1,500 in tax but, if they have 2 children, can claim £1,800 in child allowance. And then there's the housing benefit...
Click to expand...

Employers CHOOSE to pay what they pay; Employees ACCEPT what they are offered or don't take the job. Nobody ASKS to work for the minimum or low wages - so the argument goes. Taxpayer funds low paid up to an accepetable living standard.

And so to Brexit Dividend #2. Flow of cheap Eastern European labour much reduced. Employers forced to pay higher wages to fill vacancies as indigenous UK labour pool refuse to work for pittance on offer. Result? Poorer Employers - Happier Employees.

Or, if employer was just managing to keep going on basis of low wages, either: NO increase in wages - plus vacancies as eastern Europeans leave and indigenous Brits unwilling to work for pittance; redundancies to cover increased wage costs; or out of business.

Increased wages as immigration falls - a Brexit Dividend double edged sword or a mirage :)
 
Hacker Khan said:
Kind of a simple sweeping statement, high on emotion but I'd suggest low on evidence, that overlooks the complexities of the situation. http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....s/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
Click to expand...

This really IS becoming a 'Art50 thread in disguise' thread! I remember providing that link to counter the same argument!!

But never mind the (real) statistics...just keep on pounding the "it's all down to immigrants" rhetoric!

Disclaimer...I may be slightly biased as I'm an immigrant - who has been here for 40 years, so will likely start to extract from instead of contributing to the UK economy!
 
drdel said:
Yup this is often the inconvenient truth. Very few migrants; most of whom are here for economic reasons will contribute more to the UK economy that they will extract as they grow old: the situation being worsened by the cash (largely untaxed and from the black economy) that is sent back to their country of original
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the analysis shows that many (most?) Eastern European immigrants tend or intend to return to their homeland when they get middle-aged and older...as they will have made the money they need to live quite comfortably at home.

I am not sure the same can be said for immigrants from Asia Sub-Continent as they firmly settle here and build strong links with the community - and we should be expecting higher immigration from that part of the world if we expect to be striking major free trade deals with the likes of India.
 
Last edited:
Foxholer said:
This really IS becoming a 'Art50 thread in disguise' thread! I remember providing that link to counter the same argument!!

But never mind the (real) statistics...just keep on pounding the "it's all down to immigrants" rhetoric!

Disclaimer...I may be slightly biased as I'm an immigrant - who has been here for 40 years, so will likely start to extract from instead of contributing to the UK economy!
Click to expand...

Or you might just say to the UK - well this is not the country I came to live in and have built my life in - and I don't think I like it quite as much as I did. So I'm off - ta-ra. :)

Anyay - I'm outta this one.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Yep those highly trained floor cleaners ,porters , toilet cleaners, cafe staff etc etc all those jobs that seem beneath the people “born and bred” in the UK

The thread is just an extension of the Art 50 thread the OP said he would avoid - but can continue the theme in a separate thread.

Let’s close our borders - non Brits not allowed , let’s keep out all the unclean.

It’s like Farage is on the forum

But don’t worry about the NHS struggling with the population increase - it’s about to get a massive increase in weekly funding which should boost it right up
Click to expand...
As a foot note to your post. It's a typical responce from you and many others where you play the man rather than the ball. Try to keep discussion on subject rather trying to discredit a contrary opinion with insults.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top