If you consider yourself to be left wing

[MaryMaryVeryContrary]

Do you believe there should be limits on migration (as a net figure) and benefits (as total % of GDP/cap per household), or do you think there should be no limits at all?

I’m a centrist, but whenever these topics are discussed I notice people claiming to be left wing become a bit uncomfortable, and usually make aspersions on the person talking about it before trying to move the conversation on. It’s like they know deep down we can’t just allow them to spiral but equally they’re at loathe to actually say it out loud because of how it looks.

"Climate change is real but isn’t causing any mass migration, nor is it responsible for wars."

Tell me you don't know anything about the subject without telling me. That is really hilarious and you have just marked yourself out as having very little knowledge or understanding of what you speak about.

"Syrian war happened because of climate change? "

Comprehension not a strong point? MAJOR causes, not the sole clause. Huge droughts between 2006 and 2010 caused desertification of agricultural land in Syria. 800, 000 people lost their incomes and something like 80% of the country's live stock died. What was the impact? Food prices more than doubled and people were displaced, 1.5 million moved from the countryside into cities, causing over crowding. The government also reacted to the crisis with poor policies causing rising anger amongst the population. Those that were left behind in the countryside were impoverished too and made them very easy pickings for radicalisation.

But yeah. No imapct.

@Aladdinzane no one needs to provide evidence for mass immigration putting wages down, it is basic economics which a level students learn on the first day. Supply goes up (of workers) price (wages) go down. This is exacerbated by the fact that the countries the immigrants come from have lower wages/expectations so they'll work for less. The head of M &S even admitted this before the referendum. Its went big companies are forever pushing for immigration, anyone who calls themselves left wing should be against it but economics not most of their strong points and they just want to feel good.

@Northernnature

Actually yes you do need evidence, because labour markets do not work that simply.

The bank of England published the most comprehensive study on the matter in 2015 and found that the impact, according to the author, was "infinitesimally small". THe LSE found, in another study, that low wage growth in the UK post 2010 was not to do with immigration but to do with the lower level of growth the UK managed, and the willingness of workers to accept lower pay rises to keep their jobs. The NIESR actually continued the work of the BOE with a report called "how small is small" concluding that the impact of immigration was really very small and many other determinants have impacted wage growth further.

Your appeal to common sense doesn't work here. You need to present evidence.

@Northernnature

"but economics not most of their strong points and they just want to feel good."

The fact that you posted this after that analysis ? Is very, very funny.

The lower level of growth is partly because of the high level of immigration - employers have not invested in technology because they have a never ending supply of low cost labour and there are more people than ever on out of work benefits besides they can't earn enough and wages no longer bear any relation to the cost of living and rather than put wages up employers ship in yet more people from a third world country. Thus is all basic common sense. Additionally the massive supply of people has put house prices up so uk people even less likely to be able to afford to work for £10 an hour. All basic stuff, I'm an accountant not an economist but I can see what's been in front of my eyes for the last 25 years!

"The lower level of growth is partly because of the high level of immigration - employers have not invested in technology because they have a never ending supply of low cost labour and there are more people than ever on out of work benefits besides they can't earn enough and wages no longer bear any relation to the cost of living and rather than put wages up employers ship in yet more people from a third world country."

"partly" nope, immigration does not have that impact. UK firms are notoriously reluctant to invest and the UK economy has been based on making fast bucks for a long time. Your analysis is both overly simplistic and devoid of historical accuracy.

"Additionally the massive supply of people has put house prices up so uk people even less likely to be able to afford to work for £10 an hour. All basic stuff, I'm an accountant not an economist but I can see what's been in front of my eyes for the last 25 years!"

The ONS studied the impact of immigration on house prices form 1985 to 2015. They found that immigration had caused house prices in the UK to increase by about 20% in this time. However, house prices had gone up by 340%, so immigration was by no means the largest or most important factor.

Also, outside of London, all regions of the UK, the level of the foreign born population is less than 10%, most actually have it under 5%.

Immigration isn't large enough to have the impacts you claim.

Ao why don't you think the state of Israel should exist?

Also, outside of London, all regions of the UK, the level of the foreign born population is less than 10%, most actually have it under 5%.

Interesting you've mentioned London. It has the UK's highest homeless rate. And it's no coincidence. Of course, high immigration numbers aren't the only cause, but it absolutely is a contributory factor.

And it doesn't only affect Londoners. There's the knock on effect when displaced Londoners move (or are moved by London councils) elsewhere. Then there's threads about regional within-UK 'blow-ins', impacting on housing, jobs, and public services...

There's an acknowledgement in those threads, and with the regional eligibility rules for social housing, that increased numbers of newcomers to an area adds pressure on housing, jobs, and public services. Especially impacting the less advantaged and poorest.

Yet for some reason it's fine to point this out when it's 'blow-ins' but Very Bad to point out the same applies with mass immigration. Even though the impact is the same.

As I've said previously. Mass immigration is a very right wing policy.... Unless the impact, especially on the less advantaged, is acknowledged and addressed.

Either, cutting immigration numbers, or a more even distribution of immigrants across different parts of the UK, or massive investment in social housing, jobs, and public services.

Absolutely need to discuss the issues in a compassionate way and avoiding hate, but they do need to be discussed and addressed.

Also regarding figures for outside London.

Within regions, lower income immigration and lower income displaced 'blow-ins' tend to be concentrated in poorer and less advantaged areas of each region. It's the less advantaged who are most impacted by the added pressures on housing, jobs, and public services.

But like I said. Whilst it's definitely not ok to refuse to acknowledge or addresss the impact of mass immigration, there's more options than just saying Stop Them All Coming.

And as I also said, the discussions need to be calm and avoid hate. But the discussions absolutely do need to be had, and the issues do need to be addressed. There's various options as I posted above. It's up to people to decide which is best.

@Againname

I mentioned London due to the fact that it has the highest proportion of foreign born nationals. Homeless people don't have the impact on wages and house prices suggested by a PP.

I mentioned London because London is basically the only place that has a high enough concentration of foreign born people to have the impacts identified by that PP, yet they complained of nation wide impacts.

"There's an acknowledgement in those threads, and with the regional eligibility rules for social housing, that increased numbers of newcomers to an area adds pressure on housing, jobs, and public services. Especially impacting the less advantaged and poorest."

By whom? Who has studied it? You can't take posters statements at face value. I've had people tell me immigration is putting pressure on towns where the population is 98% White British. Nuffield College Oxford did a study that showed increased immigration actually even lowered NHS waiting times etc.

This is part of the "honest conversation" people need to have.

I do often find though by what people mean by an "honest conversation" is that other people just have to sit there and agree with statements that are not factually based, but based on prejudice. It's one way conversation.

We're being a little bit disingenuous aren't we @Aladdinzane

I had a mooch through the stuff you mentioned, and it turns out you omitted a few bits of context.

The BOE study itself does not contain the word "infinitesimal". In fact it states the effect is "significant".

This is a 9 year old study which doesn't account for the concentration of immigration in certain cities (such as London, the place where house affordability goes to die). If you examine the whole country without appropriate weighting - which they didn't - then your average will of course be much lower. We have also had several million more people in since then. All doctors and engineers no doubt.

The NIESR only studied EU immigration, and admits that they have no idea about the cost of immigration beyond the initial "£ in/£ out". That is to say that although you could bring people in who pay £1 more in taxes than they take in benefits etc., this does not account for the increased cost/wear on associated services, such as drainage, GPs, schools, hospitals etc.

The ONS did no study of the sort. Rather their data was used by MCLRG to create a set of rough estimations using a particular (flawed) model.

Nuffield states that immigration CAN reduce times in certain places, as long as the newbies are young and healthy and the natives leave the area. In other areas they actually increase waiting times (shocker).

Anyway, since drastically increasing the population with predominantly low-paid people in just a few years has barely any effect on anything at all, I patiently await your evidence of the real culprit.

One of the reasons we are told that many asylum seekers come or try to come to the UK is that 80% or claims ate granted whereas in France it is 60%.
Rwanda, cracking down on smugglers are pointless. Why the difference in asylum granting policy?

"The BOE study itself does not contain the word "infinitesimal"."

Check what I said, the author said it was " infinitesimal", The BOE study actually says "We find that the immigrant to native ratio has a small negative impact on average British wages." But dig deeper into the paper and the impacts are very small mostly to those in the unskilled sector and only if there 10 percentage point increase in immigrants working in that sector, its regional and it also states that it is short term. ( so yes it does account for impacts on different areas).

The migration advisory committee also found similar, I'd point you to the NEISR paper which explains in actual terms what the impact is, not falling pay ( because wages don't go down) but lower wage rises of about... 2 pence per week.

"The ONS did no study of the sort. Rather their data was used by MCLRG to create a set of rough estimations using a particular (flawed) model."

It was using ONS data, but I'll accept that. But still no evidence to the contrary provided, and this shows that immigrants haven't really had the suggested impact on houseprices. There have been far larger determinants.

"Nuffield states that immigration CAN reduce times in certain places, as long as the newbies are young and healthy and the natives leave the area."

The Nuffield study showed that it does reduce in most places. The "natives" don't leave, what happens is older people move out and are dispersed so lower waiting times. As far as I remember they discussed a lot of the "healthy migrant effect".

"Anyway, since drastically increasing the population with predominantly low-paid people in just a few years has barely any effect on anything at all, I patiently await your evidence of the real culprit."

Where to start? Automation, the massive reduction in trade union membership/availability in work places, the willingness of people to accept lower pay rates after 2008/9 in order to keep their jobs? There are lots of reasons, more than I care to list here.

Why did average wages rise between 2004-2008, even for the lowest paid in unskilled sectors, despite higher immigration?

But hey, I provided evidence that even when you take it as you do, proves that the claims about the impacts of immigration are massively over blown.

@GrouachMacbeth

But the French approve more for asylum each year?

"So the impact on overall UK wages would be, in the words of the author Stephen Nickell, "infinitesimally small".

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41259803

I consider myself left of centre. I think immigration is too high. I don't like the idea that, by offering a better standard of living, this country should leach people away from their home countries, who may have need of their skills. That feels like exploitation to me.

I understand that, right now, the NHS and other caring agency's rely on such people.

A skills audit of what is needed by the country, coupled with a foreign aid budget that helps countries less fortunate than ours (maybe because of war, climate change, whatever) is a first step in stopping our explotion of other countries skill sets.

@Aladdinzane

As this thread is asking about left-wing views, I assumed people would be concerned about the most vulnerable and disadvantaged.

Homeless people don't have the impact on wages and house prices suggested by a PP.
The point is, that lowered wages, and separately extra demand on housing (especially but not only affordable housing, rent or buy) impacts on homeless people. It's actually causes increased homelessness.

I mentioned London because London is basically the only place that has a high enough concentration of foreign born people to have the impacts identified by that PP, yet they complained of nation wide impacts
And, even if someone doesn't care about the impact on less advantaged Londoners (why wouldn't Londoners btw?) it does impact on the rest of the country. Via displaced 'blow-ins' (sometimes forcibly displaced by London councils). 'Blow-ins', who add pressure on housing, jobs, and public services in other parts of the country.

Also, as I said regarding figures for outside London.
Within regions, lower income immigration (and lower income within-UK displaced British 'blow-ins') tend to be concentrated in poorer and less advantaged areas of each region.

It's the less advantaged who are most impacted by the added pressures on housing, jobs, and public services.

"'Blow-ins', who add pressure on housing, jobs, and public services in other parts of the country."

You'll need to present data for this.

I mentioned London because it is the only place that has a high enough proportion of foreign born people to have the issues suggested. However, wages are significantly higher ( even when accounting for London weighting people on lower wages get more), yes house prices are high as are rents, but that is due to the proximity to economic opportunity. There are also significantly more social housing properties for the lower paid.

Also, don't "blow ins" tend to be dispersed across geographical areas? They aren't concentrated nor are they in such large numbers that they would have the effects described?

Genuinely I think we need an honest conversation, but whilst immigration may have impacts on all these issue, it is not at all the major influence.

@Aladdinzane

Regarding wages. It's the lowest paid who are most impacted. Also note it's often other immigrants who are impacted.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-wages/

Regarding your earlier post.
I said "There's an acknowledgement in those threads, and with the regional eligibility rules for social housing, that increased numbers of newcomers to an area adds pressure on housing, jobs, and public services. Especially impacting the less advantaged and poorest."

You replied
By whom? Who has studied it? You can't take posters statements at face value.
And then you started talking about immigration. You ignored that I noted the equal impact of displaced within-UK (British) 'blow-ins'.

If there's no impact when lots of new people move to an area, why are there as I mentioned above, regional eligibility requirements for social housing?

As I said though. This doesn't necessarily mean we have to stop mass immigration. Or prevent regional movement of British 'blow-ins' (although forcible displacement shouldn't happen).

And certainly any discussion needs to be done calmly and without hate or hostility towards any groups. There does need to be a discussion though and the issues do need to be addressed.

One option is massive investment in social housing, jobs, and public services across the country. Something that's actually needed tbh regardless of immigration or regional 'blow-ins'.

@Againname

But that full fact makes the same point I did initially, the impact on wages is very small, as I said, the NEISR made the point using the same research that its not actually falling wages, but falling wage rises and that it really is very tiny. It is FAR outweighed by changes to the tax free allowance over the time period studied, and so is even less likely to have impacts on standards of living.

There are far many more important determinants of wages that are causing UK wages to raise at a lower rate than inflation over the last decade or more.

I've asked about the impact on blow ins.

Oh and there's regional criteria for social housing due to the way social housing is paid for, usually out of local government budgets not central?

Perhaps I'm wrong about the added pressure @Aladdinzane

In which case why are there regional eligibility requirements for social housing?

And, separate from social housing, why are there multiple threads on MN with people complaining about 'blow-ins' pushing up their house prices due to added demand?

You keep mentioning London. It's not the only place impacted, but regarding London you say There are also significantly more social housing properties for the lower paid.

Well clearly not nearly enough because from London Councils data:
London has the highest homelessness figures in the country, accounting for more than half the overall number of households in England living in temporary accommodation.

And, even if nobody cares about those unfortunate Londoners, it impacts on other areas. When things like this happen for example:
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/london-borough-moving-81-families-to-kent-tower-block-reveal-295257/

@Aladdinzane the impact overall on wages might be small, but it's the lowest paid who are most affected.

From the Full Fact info:.
The effects of immigration on workers within specific wage ranges or in specific occupations are more significant. There is quite a lot of evidence that immigration affects low-waged workers the most negatively

Worth noting too that
The available research also shows that any declines in wages are likely to be greatest for resident workers who are themselves migrants.

Obviously there's more than one way to address this. Some people obviously want to dramatically cut immigration numbers. There's other options though. A more even distribution throughout the country, and/or massive investment in social housing, jobs with wage protection, and public services for all who need it and wherever in the country its needed.

I tend to take over threads when I'm tired and start rambling and repeating myself, sorry! I think I'll try to shut up now.

Main thing wrt this debate imo. It's important to acknowledge there are impacts of mass immigration. Particularly on the less advantaged. And these impacts do need to be addressed. How, is up to people to decide after calm discussion (that avoids hate or hostility to any groups).

"In which case why are there regional eligibility requirements for social housing?"

I answered this above, maybe because social housing is paid for from council budgets not central government.

"And, separate from social housing, why are there multiple threads on MN with people complaining about 'blow-ins' pushing up their house prices due to added demand?"

This is almost certainly not from immigration, this is due to people selling up and cashing in from London and moving out. London has doubled in size since 1990, and whilst there is a high level of foreign born people living there, there was back in the 70s, 80s and 90s. What is often forgotten too is that London recieves a lot of internal migration. Almost all of the young people ( for me young aged 21-40) that I know here are not from London, almost all of them British. London has had transient communities forever and with WFH and faster commute times it encourages people to move out. This has been much more pronounced since Covid.

That linked story isn't that good an example. The property was empty. How does moving people into empty properties impact?

@Againname

"I tend to take over threads when I'm tired and start rambling and repeating myself, sorry! I think I'll try to shut up now."

Please don't, the is the most reasoned discussion I've had on this ( or anything on here).