OK - Britain is a small country

[friskyfox]

So why are we taking in more immigrants? We now have an influx of Romanians and Bulgarians coming here. Before anyone calls me racist or the like, I am 100% not. It just annoys me because we are a tiny country. Why are countries like Australia, NZ, USA, and Canada more selective and Britain is not.
thelink

I kinda agree but that ca largely be overcome. I am eployed by my ni one afternoon a week to go to a school in an area with huge economic deprivationa nd mentor 3 kids who aren't quite meeting their potential. The reults I ahve seen in just 2 months are huge- I cn't wait to se what happens after 2 years! We do teach educational skills (revison etc), but we also by our very rpesence tell the kids that they're worth it, that they have value. Sadly that's a message not all kids get at home. A lots of schools in the area don't take up the chance to utilise the schme, but i think it should be standard. It also means that kids who didn't know Uni was a possibility (I didn't when I was grwoing up) have the chance to meet students, realise how similar they are to themselves, have someone to talk through aspirations who doesn't say 'don't be stupid, the factory is where you're headed'.

I really fail to see how giving every adult a certain amount of money regardless of income would help things or be economically viable although I do see huge advantages to simplifying our benefits system.

I really think that heavily subsidised quality childcare is the way forward for many women who are dependent upon benefits. I personally feel very strongly that single parents should not be forced out to work, especially if they have pre-schoolers, as their los are likely to be already missing lots of contact time with one parent and surely need to spend more time with the parent that they live with. There is though a large group of women who would like to work, part-time or full-time, but find it difficult to justify the time away from their los because expensive childcare makes the financial rewards for working very slim. It would be a significant expense for the government in the short-term but I think that long-term it would pay for itself as more women worked and so paid taxes and required less in the way of additional benefits not to mention the work-ethic that children would learn.

It removes the disincentive not to work because you get the money whether you work or not and gets rid of the black economy to some extent for those on benefits at least. It's not my idea. Lots of people have recommended it - minimum guaranteed income or something. I wouldn't remove benefits for under 18s and those disabled under that age - I just meant for over 18s.

Those over 18 who could never work they'd still get this guaranteed sum.

Universal free childcare - other countries provide it. If you believe it is better if mothers are home with small children then it's a very very bad thing and instead we should be supporting the very very high cost of UK childcare because that means mothers stay at home where people argue they belong bonding with their babies because even a £20k salary barely lets them break even. Depends on your view on having a parent with a small child.

Universal free childcare is an excellent idea- though again some kids can't access it.

I wonder if something like the student loans system could be implemented- so that at home mums (ALL) get access to a weekly amount, paid back when they return to work (if they do) and earn above a certain amount? I just think this would stop many famillies falling into the gap where Mum ahs to be at home because childcare is unaffordable, their income is then so low they can't afford anything bar council housing, they run up huge debts just to survive- thereby leaving them with huge hurdles to jump when the kids go to a school (covering debt repayments on top of paying for childcare etc). Of course not everyone would have to access this amount, but it would be a safety net for some, and also an enabler for those who want to be at home but can't afford not to- having to do something that isn't your choice is sad, whether that be being a SAHM or a WOHM. I've been both, neither is easy, bt doing what you chose yourself feels easier.

I think that universal free childcare for working mums is an excellent idea. I have a small child and I'm looking forward to going back to work in Jan after mat leave. I can't imagine not working longterm but I recognise that this wouldn't be the right choice for many people. I also think that what the right choice is should be based upon what a family feels, not about the only option available to them for economic survival.

Free childcare would surely only give women who want to work the opportunity to do so. I'm not sure how it would penalise those that didn't want to work.

(I recognise of course that it may be men/fathers not just women/mothers who would be helped by free childcare.)

Ooops Peachy, didn't mean to plagiarise your first sentence!

LOL

universal free childcare might also help give owmen the ability to access the way I'm playing it- I'm combing the pre-school years with Uni, something I needed to get to progress with my career and also something I have always desperately wanted to do. That would also feed back into the economy at some point too.

I think the problem with Britain, is not it's size but an education system that doesn't cause people to laugh openly at crap like "Britain is a small island".

These islands could accommodate the entire population of the world at a higher standard of living than the aveage Brit currently enjoys.

you just need to build the infrastructure.

As a sovereign democratic nation, we have decided that national centres for sporting excellence, supporting George Bush, and various Opera companies are more important uses for our tax money than schools, transport or water infrastructure.
We could have built these and still can, indeed they would love to help us.

It is impossible to live and work in Britain withough paying a lot of tax. Yes, some people don't pay income tax, but they can't avoid VAT, petrol duty, taxes on alcohol etc.
In any case nearly all do pay income tax.

What do they get in return ?
Sick people don't leave their country for work, and contrary to the Dail Mail, typically put up with local hospitals, so almost never use the NHS.

They are vastly less likely to commit crimes, though of course the entirely British home office can't cope if they do go bad.

They are younger than the average working Brit, and thus help pay for pensions they stand little chance of ever receiving.

Short version is that we are ripping them off.

Of course for a given value of "them".
My parents were immigrants, my mother spent WWII assembling bombs for the RAF.
As one of these despised "immgrants" I directly provide employment for Brits at wages they find acceptable, and repay the entire cost of my education through tax every couple of months.
I would contrast this with the poor education and low contribution to the economy made by the average Daily Mail reader.

My view, as a working Mum, is that my children have both benefitted hugely from attending childcare and they are both very socially confident - much more so than their friends who have sahm's. I'm not saying that to start a row, its just an observation. Also there are quite high levels of depression amongst sahm's, which can't be great for their kids and I say that as someone who's mother suffered from depression for years. Sorry if that seems like a dig at sahm's, its not meant to be at all; just a couple of observations.

Back to the point though; I think that lack of educational attainment has more to do with attitude of parents than income. All the reserach shows this, which is why children from poor migrant communities often actually do better in school than the white working class or afro-caribbeans. Because their parents are newly arrived and will make damn sure their children work hard at school to achieve a better life than the one they've left back home.

In Sweden, Mums get a year off work on full pay - then each child is guarunteed a free place in a State nursery from the age of one. Now THAT would be worth paying higher tax for!

As I said earlier, my work is partly running "training into work" schemes and we work mainly with people from new communities, who come to this country and want to work - i.e. they are not afriad of doing a hard days work. TBH they are a pleasure to work with. The benefits system here has allowed a lot of Brits to become benefit dependant and loads of parents are caught in a benefit trap - they get so many benefits they'd be much worse off if they got a job.

Eek never thought I'd say this but

DC good post

I was in Sweden earlier this year. The men were very involved with families and I liked the sound of how it all operated but it's expensive and it's the countries with all this provision who have a much much bigger problems with pensions time bomb and no younger people which is nothing like as bad in the UK.

Israeli kibbutz provided it and nothing to stop mumetters forming communes and providing free child care in that way.

What about this business idea so you can help me pay off my £1m mortgage....
I offer to provide free childcare to all parents of under 5s (I use existing private nurseries pooled nannies etc)... and then I set up a mother's equivalent of the student loans company; we could may be squeeze some money out of Blair for it to be a public/private thing too as long as my profits were preserved... 3i can invest too... anyway then you come to me and get your child in the free place. Your salary at work and status is preserved so you don't have the 30 year career implication of mother or father giving up work which kills your future prosperity in so many cases.. it costs you nothing now or you can choose to pay part of the cost and then you pay it back over time. Perhaps the state could fund the interest payments too because you'll be working and paying tax anyway so they are gaining through your work as it is.

harktheherald I do think it depends on the child: not counting ds1 (SN), ds2 thrivd hugely on childcare (combination of grandmother and nursery) and si amazingly confident. DS3 wouldn't setle at all, and we eventually ahd to pull him out and keep him at home a year, at whch oint he went to a cm where he was happy. He's confident as anything now, but he REALLY needed that year with me, in the few weeks he was at Nursery he didn't cope at all and his confidence plummeted (FWIW we also think he has SN now but ahd no idea of this at the time in question). Mother,s kids, families all vary and access to choice has to be the priority imo.

blimey, I agree with dc.

But I disagree with the first sentence: lots of people on this thread have been finding fault with the op, if not laughing at it. but what's particularly not funny is that a fear of immigration is quite common in the UK and in lots of other countries, including all those mentioned in the op and Spain.

your business idea, Xenia, is nicked from me a few posts down LOL

but its fab, obv

True. Also not sure it's a good business model as like the students loads will never pay anything back and some never work above the threshold for repayment so may not work and a lot of people setting up private nurseries have not found it very profitable, lots suffered when Blair changed the rules too in today's papers and anything where you're paid by fairly impoverished parents is not going to be that greatly profitable I suppose. I suppose also there's too much unpredictability - the nation's view on work etc goes up and down are we happy or not happy with working mothers; except in general there seems to be a fairly unstoppable increase year on year on parents of under 5s who work although that may just be a house price issue.

I think the house price issue is part of it, but its also just acceptability- when I was a kid nobodies Mum worked outside school hours, it takes a few years for that sort of monumental life shift to become the norm.

Not sure how many students won't work- when I started there were a few recent grads muttering they'd stop at 15K income if that stopped payback, but a lot of that was annoyance at the difference between the way students in the past ahd been funded. As that passes into memory the annoyance passes, and on my course I can only think of one person (maybe 2 depending on age) who is unlikely to pay back, because he intends to emigrate to be with his Mother who just moved to India (the course is relevant)

I think the whole childacer thiing needs rethinking- it owuld be cheaper for the Government to pay for a nanny for my brood than nursery, but there is too little flexibility. A Nanny could work- because of ds1's SN- where a Nursery wouldn't, also it owuld work better with antisocial hours. Nurseries around here strictly start at 8, no good for many working parents.

The about Swedish maternity leave is that in Britian it is not paid for by taxes unless the woman is on minimum wage, and not fully even then.
In Britain if one hires a woman who then takes maternity leave, as an employer you get hit for big costs.
Thus the laws are essentially socialist, reducing the ermployability of women. Look at the rates of female employment where "generous" maternity leave is given.

If you wanted employment-neutral (or even postitive) maternity leave then employers who lost out by maternity leave would be compensated by money raised in general taxation.
But both parties in this country fixate on the "headline" level of income tax, rather than looking at the bad effects of measures they can inflict but not have to pay for.

What we need to do is stop thinking of mums as people, but more as economic machinery

When you have to take a big expensive machine out of service, you try to plan it so that you do several bits of maintenance or upgrades at the same time.
Many women could benefit from an upgrade to their skills (as could we all).
Rather than try to shoehorn sleep deprived women back to work as quickly as possible we should take the opportunity to upgrade skills and education.
Given the cost of childcare, it's hard to make an economic case for many women to return to work before the kid goes to school, by which time their skills have degraded. Women average lower skills to start off with, so there is obvious work to be done.
Cheap flexible learning, could be supplied through stuff like the Open University, and studied in the random periods when the kids aren't so interactive.

Just had to add, yes, canada is huge and could and does take immigrants and can always take more, if fact, needs more. But remember that a large chunk of hte country is very isolated and very cold and I don't think many are willing to immigrate to spend most of the year in minus 20 temps and months of 24 hour darkness. Also, alot of it is not populated because employment prospects are poor, so if you bunch the sections together where you can make a good life, then, we may be about the same size as the uk. Toronto, vancouver, calgary and montreal if you are willing to learn french are the main places people go. The UK sends alot of it's citizens to canada, always have and always welcome. of course we can't just open the doors and say come on down, but we have to be careful not to shut the door behind us once we get in somewhere. My ancestors were irish and not so welcome at the time but irish/scot/british tradition in canada is strong and make up part of a great country. We need to let others have a go at building up our countries too.

"buildres are fucked off cos they can't charge extortionate rates that they used to cos eastern europeans will work for cheaper. isn't that just a free market economy? "

Bollocks Custardo! People just want to get things for nothing. Why should a competent experienced builder like my DH work for peanuts just because someone wants a cheap bloody conservatory? It's getting harder and harder for the small company my DH is contracted to to get work at a price that enables them to get by, pay their mortgages and feed their families. None of the partners have taken more than about £14k a year out of the business since it was set up - not exactly luxurious living. The fat cats in the building industry get fat by employing brickies and chippies for very low wages and creaming off the profits. The lower paid workers from Poland etc aren't going to hurt them - but people like my DH who doesn't earn a fortune anyway. Yes it's a free market economy - but who ever said that was an ideal model for anything?

Free markets work well. Why not go off to Romania where property prices are cheap and set up a building firm there? Or why doesn't your husband or even you set up a business importing Romanian labourers to cream off the profits you think others are creaming off? Or if building is unprofitable the way markets work is that people won't then go into that sector and he should pick something that pays better etc.

If he picks something that pays better he'd be accused of not wanting a labouring job - as has already been mentioned on this thread - lazy Brits that don't want hard work! He likes building - and beleive me he's tried several other areas prior to this. He also doesn't want to cream off the profits - he wants to do a days work for a days 'living' wage. Neither he nor I have any problem with immigrants even though the influx of workers is beginning to have an impact on him even in our part of the country. What riles me is the assumption (like Custardo's) by so many people in this country that the existing building community is simply there to rip off the poor householder and that somehow they should be able to work for starvation wages. If you live in this country you need to earn enough - that goes for builders as much as for anyone else.

DC - the tax payer does fund maternity pay. many employers top up the statutory minimum, but the stat minimum is covered by the Inland Revenue - and everyone is entitled to it - regardless of their earnings. At the moment it's 90 per cent of your average weekly earnings for the first six weeks, then just over £100 a week for 20 weeks. Plenty of people on more than the min wage only get the stat minimum. As an employer it costs you nothing to give your employees the stat minimum - in fact you get an allowance (about £200-300 iirc) to cover the cost of recruiting a replacement.

Yes, hw. We paid two nannies their SMP and got it all paid back from the state. Huge hassle to manage and operate it and we had two tax investigations of our nanny tax over the years not that they found anything amiss at all but took up massive amounts of my time.

On the builders etc point I heard a programme on the radio about this - young Poles waiting to be picked up each day in case there is work from pick up points at 6am just like in the days when builders weren't unionised etc - they were likening the two situations. I think if you can run your building firm with enough good trained reliable people you can always use an extra pair of cheap hands who if you manage them well enough can be okay. When we had the house redecorated part of the team were 2 Poles. One works 9 months of the year here and then the rest he travels to places like Madagascar and takes absolutely wonderful photographs of people and wildlife - he showed us. Very interesting man.

We rented out a 2 bed property to 2 Zimbabweans. Within a few weeks we had complaints from the neighbours that around 15 people were living there! Some working days, others nights hop in the bed while it was still warm etc... They were lovely people - always charming and paid the rent on time.
Migrant workers will often price unskilled British labour out of a job because they can work for less as they are prepared to keep accommodation costs down by living in such overcrowded conditions.
My dh came to the south east from Northumberland - shared a 5 bed house with 6 other young graduates.
In a way it's a similar scenario - put up with 'uncomfortable' conditions for a short time to give yourself a better opportunity in life.
I don't approve of illegal immigration, but legal migrants from any country have my blessing.

fortyplus - that's the key isn't it? They 'can' possibly work for lower wages.

We have a lot of Eastern European immigrants in our town I don't quite know why here particularly - I've only got to know one who's little boy plays with my eldest 2. It still gives me a thrill to hear all these foreign voices in our previously 100% monoglot little town. Can only be a good thing IMO.