Leaving the EU

[tillson]

I think the 2.2 millions over the last 5 years is much nearer to the truth.
Yes, it seems to add pressure to housing, schools, the NHS but you can take this positively because with an ageing population, we would face even a bigger budget deficit without them.

I don't think we would trex. It's hard ,if not impossible, to back up the argument either way with data because as we are seeing, the data is being suppressed, corrupted, hidden and attempts to unearth it, frustrated. This is being done for a reason and we know that much for certain. I really fear for future generations in this country. We've always had immigration but our numbers have never swelled to such a size so rapidly before.

 

[trex]

Tillson, the GDP figures from OECD and the World Bank show that UK GDP grew about 700 billion dollars over the last 5 years, roughly 23%. That can't be achieved by an ageing population alone. Germany can't grow that fast without millions of immigrants either.
The increase in GDP means that the national debt is easier to service, so immigrants serve both purposes: someone to look after the old and the young, and reduce pressure on debt repayments. We should plan for it but don't knock it.
People move to where there is work, not because of schools or the NHS. If Brexit is sucessful, there will be more immigrants, not less. On the long term, the pressure will even out across the EU, regardless of the outcome. When the flow starts to reverse, ie more Brits move to Southern Europe than eastern Europeans to UK, we will be worse off, not better.

 

[flecc]

the HMRC have issued 2.2 million National Insurance numbers to EU migrants during that same period.

I agree the official figures are inaccurate, but 2.2 millions isn't the net migration either. As Trex remarked, they come here for work, not for benefits, and in consequence many fail to find it and return to their home country. Every week a number of busloads depart Victoria coach station alone on those return trips, predominantly returning to Eastern Europe. In addition, for those who want to return but no longer have the means, we have a subsidy scheme that enables them to go.

I've watched the large variety of A and E and Trauma medicine documentaries on TV and have seen no evidence of the immigrants overwhelming our NHS. What I do see every time is a number of feckless, mainly English individuals in the waiting area who shouldn't be present, having a minor scratch, sprain or splinter which they could easily deal with themselves. They bring friends and relatives and clearly treat it as a social occasion, chatting, joking, listening to music and stuffing themselves from the hospital's food vending machines, even ordering fast food deliveries from outside while waiting. Genuine medical emergencies don't do such things

They are the ones creating the four hour plus waiting times, and I'm sure the large increase in such TV programs over the last decade has encouraged this gross abuse.

The priority sorting procedures that hospital A & E centres have can easily determine those that are not emergencies and they should face a substantial charge for using the service. Like wise, 999 requests for an ambulance have almost doubled in the last decade while the population has only risen a fraction of that. Again the abusers should be charged.

That simple measure of charging, either at cost or a flat rate £50, would immediately solve the NHS A & E and ambulance overload problems and prompt people to look after minor issues themselves as we always used to.
.

 

[trex]

and take their mobile phones away until they cough up the cash.

 

[tillson]

What I do see every time is a number of feckless, mainly English individuals in the waiting area who shouldn't be present, having a minor scratch, sprain or splinter which they could easily deal with themselves. They bring friends and relatives and clearly treat it as a social occasion, chatting, joking, listening to music and stuffing themselves from the hospital's food vending machines, even ordering fast food deliveries from outside while waiting. Genuine medical emergencies don't do such things

They are the ones creating the four hour plus waiting times, and I'm sure the large increase in such TV programs over the last decade has encouraged this gross abuse.

The priority sorting procedures that hospital A & E centres have can easily determine those that are not emergencies and they should face a substantial charge for using the service. Like wise, 999 requests for an ambulance have almost doubled in the last decade while the population has only risen a fraction of that. Again the abusers should be charged.

That simple measure of charging, either at cost or a flat rate £50, would immediately solve the NHS A & E and ambulance overload problems and prompt people to look after minor issues themselves as we always used to.
.

I find myself agreeing with you again here and this sort of thing is a problem which needs to be addressed urgently. I don't think it's unfair to put some of the blame for long GP waiting lists on this sort of behaviour either.

However it doesn't explain all of it and numbers play a big part. Less people using a system, be it health, education, social care, police, housing etc, the better it works.

 

[flecc]

Less people using a system, be it health, education, social care, police, housing etc, the better it works.

True, but health and social care are so dependent on immigrants that they are net beneficiaries. Remove the immigrants and those services would be far worse. Many other occupations are also quite heavily dependent on immigrants.

Realistically we can't pick and choose, saying it's ok to do certain things like social or health work but immigrants can't do other jobs so shouldn't come here for those. Either our labour market is open or it's closed, and if closed we'd be in dire straights in many essential areas.
.

 

[derf]

I agree the official figures are inaccurate, but 2.2 millions isn't the net migration either. As Trex remarked, they come here for work, not for benefits, and in consequence many fail to find it and return to their home country. Every week a number of busloads depart Victoria coach station alone on those return trips, predominantly returning to Eastern Europe. In addition, for those who want to return but no longer have the means, we have a subsidy scheme that enables them to go.

I've watched the large variety of A and E and Trauma medicine documentaries on TV and have seen no evidence of the immigrants overwhelming our NHS. What I do see every time is a number of feckless, mainly English individuals in the waiting area who shouldn't be present, having a minor scratch, sprain or splinter which they could easily deal with themselves. They bring friends and relatives and clearly treat it as a social occasion, chatting, joking, listening to music and stuffing themselves from the hospital's food vending machines, even ordering fast food deliveries from outside while waiting. Genuine medical emergencies don't do such things

They are the ones creating the four hour plus waiting times, and I'm sure the large increase in such TV programs over the last decade has encouraged this gross abuse.

The priority sorting procedures that hospital A & E centres have can easily determine those that are not emergencies and they should face a substantial charge for using the service. Like wise, 999 requests for an ambulance have almost doubled in the last decade while the population has only risen a fraction of that. Again the abusers should be charged.

That simple measure of charging, either at cost or a flat rate £50, would immediately solve the NHS A & E and ambulance overload problems and prompt people to look after minor issues themselves as we always used to.
.

i work in the NHS and agree - admittedly in Buckinghamshire I see very few patients who are immigrants. on the other hand, what I do see is the way government's cuts to social care seem to have done a significant bit in making things just that bit more of a despairing dystopia where people drink, hurt themselves, become depressed, self harm, etc

 

[trex]

..
what I do see is the way government's cuts to social care seem to have done a significant bit in making things just that bit more of a despairing dystopia where people drink, hurt themselves, become depressed, self harm, etc

how about a culture that says it's OK to smoke, drink and take drugs then offload the consequences onto taxpayers?

 

[mike killay]

We got it!

 

[derf]

how about a culture that says it's OK to smoke, drink and take drugs then offload the consequences onto taxpayers?

i have a hunch this wont convince any of you: but I work with very many substance abusers, and I have yet to meet one that is either happy; or who wouldn't choose a different non-substance abusing life if they could. Courtesy of creeps like Osborn we live in a time when it's very easy and fashionable to blame the poor and disadvantaged; and pretend that the rich and multinationals are somehow where they are because of a "work ethic". Trump is IMHO a figurehead for these kind of "values"

 

[flecc]

what I do see is the way government's cuts to social care seem to have done a significant bit in making things just that bit more of a despairing dystopia where people drink, hurt themselves, become depressed, self harm, etc

I tend to agree with you on the subject of substance abusers, having worked with drug addicts over a number of years.

However, I predate the welfare state and have watched how it has created a dependency culture where the public expect to much of government and others and too often lack the will and courage to act for themselves. I'm inclined at times to think that we've bred a nation of wimps, and there's plenty of evidence for that view.

So I have some degree of sympathy for what the present government is trying to do, albeit somewhat ham-fistedly at times. I recognise that reversing the present situation to a more satisfactory one where the public become more capable and more independently self supporting is bound to be painful and at times individually unfair. Basically it was easy long ago to give to the point of harming society, but it's now difficult to take away. However, it does need doing if we are not going to become an ever more failing society, dependent on ever increasing unsustainable debt.
.

 

[derf]

I tend to agree with you on the subject of substance abusers, having worked with drug addicts over a number of years.

However, I predate the welfare state and have watched how it has created a dependency culture where the public expect to much of government and others and too often lack the will and courage to act for themselves. I'm inclined at times to think that we've bred a nation of wimps, and there's plenty of evidence for that view.

So I have some degree of sympathy for what the present government is trying to do, albeit somewhat ham-fistedly at times. I recognise that reversing the present situation to a more satisfactory one where the public become more capable and more independently self supporting is bound to be painful and at times individually unfair. Basically it was easy long ago to give to the point of harming society, but it's now difficult to take away. However, it does need doing if we are not going to become an ever more failing society, dependent on ever increasing unsubstainable debt.
.

I half agree with you (a bit like Tillson before I think, but distinctly to the left..i think we've got the entire political spectrum on this thread). If we lived in a meritocracy/level playing field all of what you say would be true. Unfortunately we live in a society where the government deliberately fosters tax havens like the caymans, and the beneficiaries send their children to private schools, before inheriting serious wealth - as opposed to the poor who struggle to get onto a property ladder overpopulated by the wealthy multi property owners looking for "better than standard pension returns". IMHO your logic would hold if we lived in a truly social democracy like one of the Scandinavian countries with farer, and much harsher, tax regimes and - even if only somewhat - less corrupt politicians that aren't as entirely looking forward to lucrative private jobs and hand-outs from private companies.

 

[flecc]

I half agree with you (a bit like Tillson before I think, but distinctly to the left..i think we've got the entire political spectrum on this thread). If we lived in a meritocracy/level playing field all of what you say would be true. Unfortunately we live in a society where the government deliberately fosters tax havens like the caymans, and the beneficiaries send their children to private schools, before inheriting serious wealth - as opposed to the poor who struggle to get onto a property ladder overpopulated by the wealthy multi property owners looking for "better than standard pension returns". IMHO your logic would hold if we lived in a truly social democracy like one of the Scandinavian countries with farer, and much harsher, tax regimes and - even if only somewhat - less corrupt politicians that aren't as entirely looking forward to lucrative private jobs and hand-outs from private companies.

I agree, we are a million miles from the very equal social status that all in Sweden enjoy and show no signs of heading that way at present. However, what we've been doing for many years now isn't sustainable and will end in tears and far greater hardship than anything at present.

So I support any step towards putting that right and don't think problems elsewhere in our society are an excuse for not trying and just letting disaster happen.

Yes it is immoral that a few enjoy such privilege while others suffer, but the operative word is "few". Even if we could magically take away all that they gain, spread across the rest of us the amounts would be miniscule and would undoubtedly quickly disappear into the bottomless pit of our present welfare state.

Clearly we cannot adopt a Scandinavian model directly because no parts of our broken society would agree. The upper privileged are not going to let go of their positions, the wage earners already resent present tax levels and won't agree to losing almost two thirds of what they earn, and the other privileged class, the welfare state's black economy scroungers are only going to adopt the taking part and not the taxation to pay for it.

As the apocryphal Irishman is reputed to have said when giving a lost person directions, "If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here". But here is where we are and from where we have to start in putting things right to avoid a worse future. I'm sure I don't need to remind that it's in failing countries like Greece that the underprivileged suffer far worse than anything here at present.
.
.

 

[trex]

highest income tax rates in Sweden (51%) and in Norway (55%) are not a million miles away compared to ours. What saves their welfare system is the cold weather, smaller population and better education.
For example, there are 9.4 millions people with some disability in the UK against Sweden 1.5 millions. How did we get to having so many people who have to rely on benefits? it's not in the genes (1 out of 20 children have some disability against 1 in 5 for adults), the answer must be in policies of successive goverments.

 

[flecc]

highest income tax rates in Sweden (51%) and in Norway (55%) are not a million miles away compared to ours.

Income tax doesn't reflect the true position though, the total tax take is far higher in Sweden for example. Most people pay from 49% to 60% of salary in state and local taxes, and the total take from employers is very high too.

For example, there are 9.4 millions people with some disability in the UK against Sweden 1.5 millions. How did we get to having so many people who have to rely on benefits? it's not in the genes (1 out of 20 children have some disability against 1 in 5 for adults), the answer must be in policies of successive goverments.

Our population is 6.7 times Sweden's, so their disability total is very slightly worse (6%) than ours pro rata. Our government policies seem to be having no different effect than theirs.

I don't think the comparison of child and adult disability rates has much meaning in this context. It's known that premature babies have a much greater risk of serious problems later in life, the more premature, the greater the risk. And the advances in medicine have meant that babies have become increasingly viable at ever earlier stages of birth. So in solving one problem, we have been creating another.
.

 

[trex]

flecc, 30 millions people pay income tax to support the rest, that's why there is not much money to meet the demands. My contention is, 80% of people who need help arrive to this position not from birth but later in life, so policies can greatly reduce the burden on future generations.

 

[flecc]

flecc, 30 millions people pay income tax to support the rest, that's why there is not much money to meet the demands.

Agreed, and a good argument for tackling and removing the huge black and grey economies that we have.

My contention is, 80% of people who need help arrive to this position not from birth but later in life, so policies can greatly reduce the burden on future generations.

I'm not quite sure how though, since I take it you're not advocating shooting the disabled.

Our road traffic accident rates are about the world's lowest, so not much can be gained there.

Our increasingly long lives are increasing the burden, difficult to reverse and that not seen as desirable anyway.

Likewise the premature baby situation I mentioned above.

About the only area I can see is to increase health, but that is self defeating since it extends life into later disability, more need for support and a higher pensions bill.
.

 

[trex]

I secretly support forced science education and 'work until you drop' policy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06565zm

 

[flecc]

I secretly support forced science education and 'work until you drop' policy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06565zm

Yes, I saw that program when it was first shown.
.

 

[trex]

5 weeks in:

Levers are edging strongly ahead. Out of people who intend to vote:

Outers: 52%
Inners: 45%
Still can't decide: 3%

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12193963/EU-referendum-Exclusive-Telegraph-poll-says-Leave-campaign-most-likely-to-win-in-June.html

One perhaps not so curious point is that telephone polls always put leavers ahead by a large margin while internet polls have until now put remainers ahead. This week is the first week when internet polls show that leavers have also edged ahead albeit the margin is smaller, 51% leave, 49% remain.
unless the EU can demonstrate that their solution results in fewer people trying to cross from Turkey to Greece before 23rd of June, Brexit is going to happen.