To think 335,000 extra people coming to the UK in a year is too high

[jdoe8]

Where will they all live? What jobs will they all do? I know it may help GDP, but that is irrelevant as GDP per head is the important thing.

It does seem to be race to the bottom with more part time work , uber type work and the country is borrowing more and more and the national debt is 35k per head now.

So 3/4% in the last ten years or so of social housing went to a group of EU countries (Eastern European countries)

That equates to a high percentage of people coming here who have gained social housing

What percentage of people coming here are able to get social housing compared to people born here those figures show look as though it's a high number

Economic Tiger
Whilst you are quite balanced in you comments you indicate there are adverse impacts from non EU migration from Pakistan (which is now nearly all points based skilled based) because it brings in people like the ones you describe? How is leaving the EU and thus going to an entirely points based system going to change that?

I mentioned earlier up that India recently linked increasing trade with us with us granting more visas. So the number from South East Asia may well increase

Because we can then have more control over who comes here to live and work it will change as the economy changes as it does now to some extent but with government control

We can learn from the Australian system we do not have to copy it. No system will be perfect but the system of free movement hasn't just been a problem here it has been in other European countries too

can we carry on with the high amount of immigration to the UK?

From a housing developer's perspective, no, it can't continue.

OH 'jokes' that the UK will have to resort to US-style trailer parks.

OH 'jokes' that the UK will have to resort to US-style trailer parks.

Surely we have those already?

BillSykesDog Your post at 10.42 is one of the best expositions of what is going wrong with the left that I have read. Thank you.

justice, I am a Remainer. The reason I am foreign in my own land due to immigration (and white flight from my area) is not just EU immigration but immigration from lots of other places too. Brexit so far has had the impact of more immigration from the EU as most of us Remainers knew and I doubt Brexit will have much of an impact on immigration when we leave in 2019 either. Mnay immigrants improve the UK but importing those with sexist and homophobic attitudes in large numbers is the interesting point - when those with liberal values become the unusual other one in their own land.

Many of the metropolitan elite whether Labour or Tories live apart from such effects or only have to cope with Frenchmen in Kensington so they do not see the impact others do.

The British people we recruit generally speaking take longer to train, are slower and less organised and ironically often speak poorer English. They also never return after maternity leave and if they do are always sick. European women work and continue to do so after having babies fulltime so I know its safe to investest in them.

It's not just prejudice. Your admission that you don't employ British women because you don't think they will return from maternity leave is outright discrimination (albeit sexual rather than racial).

If you got busted for your views at work you'd be on the end of a shitload of court cases. Your actions are not just distasteful, they're illegal.

Enormous tiger are you arguing against yourself?

British isn't a race. hmm

Mexicans and Jamaicans aren't racists either user. Doesn't stop criticism of those nationalities being called racism does it?

Is this a reasoned debate on brexit? As was recommended by a pp at the start of this thread?
I'm not sure if it is or not.

Whilst the overwhelming majority of you are concluding that we are full up etc, the economic realities that businesses are presenting to Government are very different. Looks like we will need close to current levels of migration when you add together needed skilled/unskilled migration (but with the added red tape/inflexibilty the EU removes and visa schemes like the Seasonal Workers Scheme will add)

news.sky.com/story/ministers-pressing-for-low-skilled-migration-to-continue-after-brexit160-10682703

Tiger

I laugh (hollowly) at the "elites" comment as you don't get to be an ordinary employed person in East Anglia on an average salary and be part of the "elite".

Whereas Nigel Farage and Arron Banks on the other hand are so elite it is unbelievable; and yet, large swathes of the population buy into their "its all the fault of the .... "(add whichever scapegoat is useful that day) "man of the people" nonsense.

We know from the Panema Fonseca leaks that people like Arron Banlks have huge offshore investments. It is very unlikely that the welfare of British workers is his true objective www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/15/panama-papers-reveal-offshore-secrets-arron-banks-brexit-backer

Mmm cabinet ministers feeling pressure from business leaders that profit from keeping low skilled very low paid workers

Again no one is saying no more immigration just controlled immigration

Perhaps the complaints that people's home towns are full of EEuropean immigrants, which other people claim they can't know whether they are immigrants or UK, is because some people have many people of a different skin colour and /or different religion /or different culture around them but it's unacceptable to state that as that is racist.
So the EEuropean descriptor is used instead.

Mmm cabinet ministers feeling pressure from business leaders that profit from keeping low skilled very low paid workers

And you think if we had a govt of any other hue, including UKIP, that the situation would be different? The lobbying power and influence of business on Government is massive.

In practice, given the very limited out of work benefits available to EU migrants, current migration is largely determined by availability of work. Setting sector specific targets will just add a time lag but is likely not to affect levels (or wages) in my opinion.

I think someone said that the 300,000+ are 'only' 0.5% of the UK pop.

But they are getting 0.9% of the new housing tenancies.

Is that as unfair as it sounds?

Miss Margie
You are conflating several unrelated statistics. The 300,000 is roughly the net migration figure (all types). 94% of all social tenancies are going to UK citizens (so the balance is all migrants regardless of how long they have been here). A relative is a migrant (i.e. not a UK citizen ) and been here here the 50s.

Well UKIP will never be in power so that's a non issue

Labour stated in their last manifesto tht immigration needs to be controlled (or was it cut amounts to the same thing)

So not just right wing party policy any longer

And of course business lobbies government but also parties want to stay in power and right no party will win a GE if they don't take a different stance on immigration

It's time to stop allowing business to take advantage of having such cheap labour that gains more profits for themselves and their share holders

That should say... right now no party will win a general election of they don't take a different stance to immigration as tonwhay we have now

You are conflating several unrelated statistics. The 300,000 is roughly the net migration figure (all types). 94% of all social tenancies are going to UK citizens (so the balance is all migrants regardless of how long they have been here). A relative is a migrant (i.e. not a UK citizen ) and been here here the 50s

justicewoman your quote above was 91% of all NEW tenancies in one year (2014-15). Surely if someone has lived here since the 1950s and has not got their citizenship you would call them a migrant or assume they planned to return to home county. So in my mind the pop increases by 0.5% in the year but 0.9% of new tenancies are going to immigrants - this means almost twice as many new social housing is going to immigrants per head of pop, than British.

As I said above correct me if I'm wrong but that is how it reads to me. I would find this quite feasible a many immigrants have children so they will take priority over single UK people.

I see what you mean justicewoman but Should housing be allocated solely by numbers applying and the number of years a british person has been on the list, their birthplace/ family home town ignored? (hence brexit)

right now no party will win a general election

I would say right now the Conservatives will win any election as there is no opposition.
The SNP win in Scotland because the labour party have lost credibility.
However there was talk yesterday of the Lib Dems and other left wing parties not competing with each other for seats so increasing the chance of beating the tories.

The Lib Dems were in a coalition with the Tories not so long ago, they are hardly one of the "left wing" Parties.

As for immigration, the only cogent argument in favour seems to be it's an unavoidable ponzi scheme

Miss Margie
There are many reasons why people who are permanent residents don't have citizenship but are not planning to move. Many countries don't allow duel citizenship, in others it is the only way to ensure citizenship for their British born children. Many EU people have not applied but lived here 30 years plus under their Treaty of Rome rights. It also now costs thousands of pounds to apply so many people don't have the spare funds. Some will going through the laborious process of applying for citizenship when they apply for social housing.

It is very sad that you seeking to apply the most negative analysis of a relatively small number of people. 94% of social housing is taken by UK citizens. Many migrants will have been in social housing for many years . You planning to throw them out?

Pragmatically if you change the priorities then a load more people will apply for citizenship. A parallel situation is happening with EU migrants applying for permanent residence. The Govt cannot cope with the deluge and are telling people not to.

I was not arguing against myself above. I am generally pro reasonable immigration and think people want to come to the UK as we are fairly tolerant people which remains the case. However when you get 90% of an area not like you that's hard on the original occupants which I don't think some people get. Of course we can move (and people have always moved particularly immigrants who typically started lives near the docks in the East End or Heathrow airport and then as they get more prosperous and integrated in most cases mix with the general population.

I don't think most new young immigrants want or need social housing particularly - they come here to work very hard and are happy to sleep 4 a room (or the awful beds in sheds in my borough) or if necessary on the streets and they tend to try to send money home.

The basic issue however is do we want more people here? I don't mean will economically we be better if we have more people here (the case is pretty clear on that - we will be better off if we do, we need them to fund the pensions of the old). We get back as ever to is growth good? Would living on less money with fewer people around lead to happier lives?