The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[kukushkin88]

This is the great fact that Remain failed to build their campaign around and Leave lied about.

The average adult migrant from the European Economic Area yielded £2,370 more for the Treasury in 2017 than the average British-born adult did. Reducing immigration will hurt now, and in the future

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/09/26/migrants-contribute-more-to-britain-than-they-take-and-will-carry-on-doing-so

Good morning all,

Just re-quoting this for Adz (and Apez I guess) You might “doubt what they put in covers what they take out”. It looks as though using the number of foreign languages you hear in the hospital waiting room isn’t a reliable way to measure whether immigrants are net contributors to the exchequer though.

Whether they are net contributors to the Exchequer is incomplete information. If I introduce 10 million new members to the population tomorrow and they net contribute €100 per head to the exchequer do you really think that would be good for the NHS?  For all I know the article you linked measures net contribution plus cost of services consumed in which case it’s a fair argument (assuming assumptions are sound) but it’s behind a paywall and nobody answered last time.  What is certain is that just saying “immigrants are net contributors to the exchequer” is irrelevant in isolation.

How can net contribution not, by definition, take account of both? (Tax - Cost of services consumed = net contribution). I don’t think a hypothetical example so extreme, so as to be silly helps the discussion. I’ll see what I can do about freeing the info from behind the paywall.

[Woodsey]

Every time i am in hospital i always think its full of English speaking (British) people who don't bring a skill to this country and are happy to live off the state and take out way more than they put in. The reality is the vast majority of this country's population takes out way more than it puts in over their lifetime but because they were born in England it's fine for them to do this whilst telling people's family who come from abroad it is a disgrace to do the same thing even if their families bread winner is a decent grafter unlike millions of British people.  Sure the stats boys here like kuk and doobs and double up will know the figures but i think the average family have to earn way in excess of £50k a year to be net payers to the system.  So the vast majority of people who love to moan about people never paying in don't actually cover their own take outs themselves.

I would much prefer to get rid of the underclass bottom 10% of Britain out of the country (and stop them breeding more scum) who really do think the British government owes them a living/lifestyle than the millions of generally hard working immigrants.  I think i know who are the biggest strain on the system.  Wetherspoons/high st bookies would probably go out of business as a result but i am sure we could cope.

Hard working people from aboard (generally but not 100% are young single fit people ambitious and hungry to get on and don't put a big strain on resources) come to this country and work hard and never hardly take a penny.  I have worked abroad several times and hardly taken a penny out of the local system but paid plenty in.  Most don't stay long term in their old age and drain the nhs of money/pensions from the system.  They come from 20-40 years old and usually go back home after earning their cash and paying their dues via the tax system.  As the stats have proven and numerous here have stated this is fact not fantasy.

Well yes.  But isn’t it my duty as a heavy taxpayer to look after these people as they are an existing part of society?   Obviously it would be nice if the left said thank you once in a while rather than telling me I need to put in even more.

 

You rich greedy b’stard......Paiiiiiiiii 

[TightEnd]

Moving away from the above...for just a moment


Trump tells May to abandon the UK's 'unjustified' food standards in order to secure a post-Brexit trade deal.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-uk-must-bin-unjustified-food-standards-for-brexit-trade-deal-2018-10

[Tal]

Professor of politics from Queen Mary was on Daily Politics today. Suggested May's strategy is to force commons into choosing between (a) whatever she can get and (b) no deal. He said (not quoting directly) this would put Labour in a troublesome position, as it has said that a bad deal is better than no deal, so it would either have to support the PM or vote for something it said was worse than supporting the PM.

How do Labour play this? Is there any way for it to prevent that situation? And would it want to prevent it?

[TightEnd]

Highly significant:

French Government publish its draft No Deal law on website of French Senate: “reestablishment of checks of goods and passengers” & “restoration of veterinary, sanitary, phytosanitary, safety controls & customs formalities”

http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html

This matters because much of the UK secret preparedness actually relies on eg the French reciprocating waiving of most or all checks.

HMRC Chief said only this morning he did not know what French would do ... this means problems on way out of UK - m20/channel tunnel/ports

[TightEnd]

Professor of politics from Queen Mary was on Daily Politics today. Suggested May's strategy is to force commons into choosing between (a) whatever she can get and (b) no deal. He said (not quoting directly) this would put Labour in a troublesome position, as it has said that a bad deal is better than no deal, so it would either have to support the PM or vote for something it said was worse than supporting the PM.

How do Labour play this? Is there any way for it to prevent that situation? And would it want to prevent it?

the whole strategy (reference,May and teams meeting with Labour MPs not sympathetic to Corbyn) is to try to get enough Labour MPs (50+) to vote for whatever deal she can present to parliament and offset the impact of (50+) ERG tories voting no and preferring no deal

far from certain if these labour "rebels" would bail May out, that depends on whether the view is that a) her losing in the commons would force a no confidence vote and an election and b) do they want that election and corbyn as prime minister(possibly) anyway? those sympathetic to remain in leave constituencies might not be MPs after an election so job preservation comes into it

A lot of water going to flow under the bridge in the next month and decision time for all sides of Labour, whose leadership will no longer be able to vacillate and "wait it out" once it comes to voting on a deal.

If there is a deal.

at that point Labour, with a good percentage in their heartlands leavers and a good percentage in cities remainers face the acid test. going to piss off some of their supporters.

[DungBeetle]

This is the great fact that Remain failed to build their campaign around and Leave lied about.

The average adult migrant from the European Economic Area yielded £2,370 more for the Treasury in 2017 than the average British-born adult did. Reducing immigration will hurt now, and in the future

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/09/26/migrants-contribute-more-to-britain-than-they-take-and-will-carry-on-doing-so

Good morning all,

Just re-quoting this for Adz (and Apez I guess) You might “doubt what they put in covers what they take out”. It looks as though using the number of foreign languages you hear in the hospital waiting room isn’t a reliable way to measure whether immigrants are net contributors to the exchequer though.

Whether they are net contributors to the Exchequer is incomplete information. If I introduce 10 million new members to the population tomorrow and they net contribute €100 per head to the exchequer do you really think that would be good for the NHS?  For all I know the article you linked measures net contribution plus cost of services consumed in which case it’s a fair argument (assuming assumptions are sound) but it’s behind a paywall and nobody answered last time.  What is certain is that just saying “immigrants are net contributors to the exchequer” is irrelevant in isolation.

How can net contribution not, by definition, take account of both? (Tax - Cost of services consumed = net contribution). I don’t think a hypothetical example so extreme, so as to be silly helps the discussion. I’ll see what I can do about freeing the info from behind the paywall.

Net contribution is often tax paid less benefits received.

[TightEnd]

"I long for a united Ireland," John McDonnell tells the Press Gallery lunch - but insists: "I recognise democracy"...

This will be music to Theresa May’s ears. ‘There you go Arlene, you’re really happy to risk them?’

[DungBeetle]

This is the great fact that Remain failed to build their campaign around and Leave lied about.

The average adult migrant from the European Economic Area yielded £2,370 more for the Treasury in 2017 than the average British-born adult did. Reducing immigration will hurt now, and in the future

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/09/26/migrants-contribute-more-to-britain-than-they-take-and-will-carry-on-doing-so

Good morning all,

Just re-quoting this for Adz (and Apez I guess) You might “doubt what they put in covers what they take out”. It looks as though using the number of foreign languages you hear in the hospital waiting room isn’t a reliable way to measure whether immigrants are net contributors to the exchequer though.

Whether they are net contributors to the Exchequer is incomplete information. If I introduce 10 million new members to the population tomorrow and they net contribute €100 per head to the exchequer do you really think that would be good for the NHS?  For all I know the article you linked measures net contribution plus cost of services consumed in which case it’s a fair argument (assuming assumptions are sound) but it’s behind a paywall and nobody answered last time.  What is certain is that just saying “immigrants are net contributors to the exchequer” is irrelevant in isolation.

How can net contribution not, by definition, take account of both? (Tax - Cost of services consumed = net contribution). I don’t think a hypothetical example so extreme, so as to be silly helps the discussion. I’ll see what I can do about freeing the info from behind the paywall.

Net contribution is often tax paid less benefits received.

And just to expand on this if the "net contribution" does include cost of services consumed then you then need to make a lot of assumptions to arrive at the numbers.  For example what is the plan for the NHS?  Divide NHS spending per capita and then allocate it?  But then that isn't fair because immigrants are younger so you need to adjust for less usage - but how much.  Also if you split per capita this isn't very effective in any case, because immigration brings new NHS users which puts strain on the infrastructure which reduces the service for all users.  Really you need to kick the NHS expenditure upwards to account for infrastructure improvement to accommodate X Million new users and then allocate per head, while at the same time applying some kind of age adjustment which works in the younger workers favour.  So many assumptions to determine before you make your calculation which leaves it open to the political bias of whoever is producing the report.  I imagine Migration Watch would make different assumptions than an EU think tank for example.  And then you need to consider transport, schooling (when applicable) and other relevant services.

I still don't know what the Economist report detail is but I imagine you could get many reports quoting different numbers based on all manner of assumptions.

[Pokerpops]

This is the great fact that Remain failed to build their campaign around and Leave lied about.

The average adult migrant from the European Economic Area yielded £2,370 more for the Treasury in 2017 than the average British-born adult did. Reducing immigration will hurt now, and in the future

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/09/26/migrants-contribute-more-to-britain-than-they-take-and-will-carry-on-doing-so

Good morning all,

Just re-quoting this for Adz (and Apez I guess) You might “doubt what they put in covers what they take out”. It looks as though using the number of foreign languages you hear in the hospital waiting room isn’t a reliable way to measure whether immigrants are net contributors to the exchequer though.

Whether they are net contributors to the Exchequer is incomplete information. If I introduce 10 million new members to the population tomorrow and they net contribute €100 per head to the exchequer do you really think that would be good for the NHS?  For all I know the article you linked measures net contribution plus cost of services consumed in which case it’s a fair argument (assuming assumptions are sound) but it’s behind a paywall and nobody answered last time.  What is certain is that just saying “immigrants are net contributors to the exchequer” is irrelevant in isolation.

How can net contribution not, by definition, take account of both? (Tax - Cost of services consumed = net contribution). I don’t think a hypothetical example so extreme, so as to be silly helps the discussion. I’ll see what I can do about freeing the info from behind the paywall.

Net contribution is often tax paid less benefits received.

And just to expand on this if the "net contribution" does include cost of services consumed then you then need to make a lot of assumptions to arrive at the numbers.  For example what is the plan for the NHS?  Divide NHS spending per capita and then allocate it?  But then that isn't fair because immigrants are younger so you need to adjust for less usage - but how much.  Also if you split per capita this isn't very effective in any case, because immigration brings new NHS users which puts strain on the infrastructure which reduces the service for all users.  Really you need to kick the NHS expenditure upwards to account for infrastructure improvement to accommodate X Million new users and then allocate per head, while at the same time applying some kind of age adjustment which works in the younger workers favour.  So many assumptions to determine before you make your calculation which leaves it open to the political bias of whoever is producing the report.  I imagine Migration Watch would make different assumptions than an EU think tank for example.  And then you need to consider transport, schooling (when applicable) and other relevant services.

I still don't know what the Economist report detail is but I imagine you could get many reports quoting different numbers based on all manner of assumptions.

The figure for net £ impact is very much a bikini statistic. What it reveals is interesting, but what it conceals is vital.

[kukushkin88]

This is the great fact that Remain failed to build their campaign around and Leave lied about.

The average adult migrant from the European Economic Area yielded £2,370 more for the Treasury in 2017 than the average British-born adult did. Reducing immigration will hurt now, and in the future

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/09/26/migrants-contribute-more-to-britain-than-they-take-and-will-carry-on-doing-so

Good morning all,

Just re-quoting this for Adz (and Apez I guess) You might “doubt what they put in covers what they take out”. It looks as though using the number of foreign languages you hear in the hospital waiting room isn’t a reliable way to measure whether immigrants are net contributors to the exchequer though.

Whether they are net contributors to the Exchequer is incomplete information. If I introduce 10 million new members to the population tomorrow and they net contribute €100 per head to the exchequer do you really think that would be good for the NHS?  For all I know the article you linked measures net contribution plus cost of services consumed in which case it’s a fair argument (assuming assumptions are sound) but it’s behind a paywall and nobody answered last time.  What is certain is that just saying “immigrants are net contributors to the exchequer” is irrelevant in isolation.

How can net contribution not, by definition, take account of both? (Tax - Cost of services consumed = net contribution). I don’t think a hypothetical example so extreme, so as to be silly helps the discussion. I’ll see what I can do about freeing the info from behind the paywall.

Net contribution is often tax paid less benefits received.

And just to expand on this if the "net contribution" does include cost of services consumed then you then need to make a lot of assumptions to arrive at the numbers.  For example what is the plan for the NHS?  Divide NHS spending per capita and then allocate it?  But then that isn't fair because immigrants are younger so you need to adjust for less usage - but how much.  Also if you split per capita this isn't very effective in any case, because immigration brings new NHS users which puts strain on the infrastructure which reduces the service for all users.  Really you need to kick the NHS expenditure upwards to account for infrastructure improvement to accommodate X Million new users and then allocate per head, while at the same time applying some kind of age adjustment which works in the younger workers favour.  So many assumptions to determine before you make your calculation which leaves it open to the political bias of whoever is producing the report.  I imagine Migration Watch would make different assumptions than an EU think tank for example.  And then you need to consider transport, schooling (when applicable) and other relevant services.

I still don't know what the Economist report detail is but I imagine you could get many reports quoting different numbers based on all manner of assumptions.

OK, I’ll come back to this once we can all see the article.

[kukushkin88]

Every time i am in hospital i always think its full of English speaking (British) people who don't bring a skill to this country and are happy to live off the state and take out way more than they put in. The reality is the vast majority of this country's population takes out way more than it puts in over their lifetime but because they were born in England it's fine for them to do this whilst telling people's family who come from abroad it is a disgrace to do the same thing even if their families bread winner is a decent grafter unlike millions of British people.  Sure the stats boys here like kuk and doobs and double up will know the figures but i think the average family have to earn way in excess of £50k a year to be net payers to the system.  So the vast majority of people who love to moan about people never paying in don't actually cover their own take outs themselves.

I would much prefer to get rid of the underclass bottom 10% of Britain out of the country (and stop them breeding more scum) who really do think the British government owes them a living/lifestyle than the millions of generally hard working immigrants.  I think i know who are the biggest strain on the system.  Wetherspoons/high st bookies would probably go out of business as a result but i am sure we could cope.

Hard working people from aboard (generally but not 100% are young single fit people ambitious and hungry to get on and don't put a big strain on resources) come to this country and work hard and never hardly take a penny.  I have worked abroad several times and hardly taken a penny out of the local system but paid plenty in.  Most don't stay long term in their old age and drain the nhs of money/pensions from the system.  They come from 20-40 years old and usually go back home after earning their cash and paying their dues via the tax system.  As the stats have proven and numerous here have stated this is fact not fantasy.

Well yes.  But isn’t it my duty as a heavy taxpayer to look after these people as they are an existing part of society?   Obviously it would be nice if the left said thank you once in a while rather than telling me I need to put in even more.

Thanking you for paying tax, this is funny and truly ridiculous.

[Woodsey]

Every time i am in hospital i always think its full of English speaking (British) people who don't bring a skill to this country and are happy to live off the state and take out way more than they put in. The reality is the vast majority of this country's population takes out way more than it puts in over their lifetime but because they were born in England it's fine for them to do this whilst telling people's family who come from abroad it is a disgrace to do the same thing even if their families bread winner is a decent grafter unlike millions of British people.  Sure the stats boys here like kuk and doobs and double up will know the figures but i think the average family have to earn way in excess of £50k a year to be net payers to the system.  So the vast majority of people who love to moan about people never paying in don't actually cover their own take outs themselves.

I would much prefer to get rid of the underclass bottom 10% of Britain out of the country (and stop them breeding more scum) who really do think the British government owes them a living/lifestyle than the millions of generally hard working immigrants.  I think i know who are the biggest strain on the system.  Wetherspoons/high st bookies would probably go out of business as a result but i am sure we could cope.

Hard working people from aboard (generally but not 100% are young single fit people ambitious and hungry to get on and don't put a big strain on resources) come to this country and work hard and never hardly take a penny.  I have worked abroad several times and hardly taken a penny out of the local system but paid plenty in.  Most don't stay long term in their old age and drain the nhs of money/pensions from the system.  They come from 20-40 years old and usually go back home after earning their cash and paying their dues via the tax system.  As the stats have proven and numerous here have stated this is fact not fantasy.

Well yes.  But isn’t it my duty as a heavy taxpayer to look after these people as they are an existing part of society?   Obviously it would be nice if the left said thank you once in a while rather than telling me I need to put in even more.

Thanking you for paying tax, this is funny and truly ridiculous.

Why? Seems reasonable to me, all you seem to get is shouting that people earning more should pay more tax. The thanks bit was obviously a joke, but it often feel like ‘fuck you for being successful you prick, you should pay more!!!’

[kukushkin88]

Every time i am in hospital i always think its full of English speaking (British) people who don't bring a skill to this country and are happy to live off the state and take out way more than they put in. The reality is the vast majority of this country's population takes out way more than it puts in over their lifetime but because they were born in England it's fine for them to do this whilst telling people's family who come from abroad it is a disgrace to do the same thing even if their families bread winner is a decent grafter unlike millions of British people.  Sure the stats boys here like kuk and doobs and double up will know the figures but i think the average family have to earn way in excess of £50k a year to be net payers to the system.  So the vast majority of people who love to moan about people never paying in don't actually cover their own take outs themselves.

I would much prefer to get rid of the underclass bottom 10% of Britain out of the country (and stop them breeding more scum) who really do think the British government owes them a living/lifestyle than the millions of generally hard working immigrants.  I think i know who are the biggest strain on the system.  Wetherspoons/high st bookies would probably go out of business as a result but i am sure we could cope.

Hard working people from aboard (generally but not 100% are young single fit people ambitious and hungry to get on and don't put a big strain on resources) come to this country and work hard and never hardly take a penny.  I have worked abroad several times and hardly taken a penny out of the local system but paid plenty in.  Most don't stay long term in their old age and drain the nhs of money/pensions from the system.  They come from 20-40 years old and usually go back home after earning their cash and paying their dues via the tax system.  As the stats have proven and numerous here have stated this is fact not fantasy.

Well yes.  But isn’t it my duty as a heavy taxpayer to look after these people as they are an existing part of society?   Obviously it would be nice if the left said thank you once in a while rather than telling me I need to put in even more.

Thanking you for paying tax, this is funny and truly ridiculous.

Why? Seems reasonable to me, all you seem to get is shouting that people earning more should pay more tax. The thanks bit was obviously a joke, but it often feel like ‘fuck you for being successful you prick, you should pay more!!!’

What if you think success is defined by the contribution you make to society? In a country where poverty is soaring, “I earn so much money I have to pay loads of tax” is just a very lame sob story. Public servants pay tax, as well as the other obvious contributions they make to society.

[DungBeetle]

Every time i am in hospital i always think its full of English speaking (British) people who don't bring a skill to this country and are happy to live off the state and take out way more than they put in. The reality is the vast majority of this country's population takes out way more than it puts in over their lifetime but because they were born in England it's fine for them to do this whilst telling people's family who come from abroad it is a disgrace to do the same thing even if their families bread winner is a decent grafter unlike millions of British people.  Sure the stats boys here like kuk and doobs and double up will know the figures but i think the average family have to earn way in excess of £50k a year to be net payers to the system.  So the vast majority of people who love to moan about people never paying in don't actually cover their own take outs themselves.

I would much prefer to get rid of the underclass bottom 10% of Britain out of the country (and stop them breeding more scum) who really do think the British government owes them a living/lifestyle than the millions of generally hard working immigrants.  I think i know who are the biggest strain on the system.  Wetherspoons/high st bookies would probably go out of business as a result but i am sure we could cope.

Hard working people from aboard (generally but not 100% are young single fit people ambitious and hungry to get on and don't put a big strain on resources) come to this country and work hard and never hardly take a penny.  I have worked abroad several times and hardly taken a penny out of the local system but paid plenty in.  Most don't stay long term in their old age and drain the nhs of money/pensions from the system.  They come from 20-40 years old and usually go back home after earning their cash and paying their dues via the tax system.  As the stats have proven and numerous here have stated this is fact not fantasy.

Well yes.  But isn’t it my duty as a heavy taxpayer to look after these people as they are an existing part of society?   Obviously it would be nice if the left said thank you once in a while rather than telling me I need to put in even more.

Thanking you for paying tax, this is funny and truly ridiculous.

Why?  I pay an absolute truckload and have done for 15 years and all under PAYE.  I don’t mind if you don’t thank me on your internet whines.  Just don’t spit in my face.