Andy Burnham
I am away on holiday for the next week so shan’t be able to comment again before Mr Burnham’s accession into the premiership. I wish him all the luck in the world.
I've seen him described as having policies not much different from those of Sir Keir Starmer, but being a better communicator. I think that's a bit unfair, and still hope he is secretly negotiating with the Libera Democrats and Greens to beef up his cabinet by bringing some of them into it.
Maybe Sir Ed Davey at the Home Office; a Green at Environment, thus releasing Ed Miliband for the Treasury; and retaining Sir Keir as Foreign Secretary.
Overseas Aid
One of the few things at which the UK is still undeniably "World Leading" is overseas development, so it was both stupid as well as bordering on the criminal for the UK to try to balance our books on the world's poorest. Yet that is in fact what our two previous governments have done : under Rishi Sunak from 0.7% of GDP to 0.5%, then Starmer a further cut to 0.3%.
According the today's Guardian (13th July") a group of Labour MPs, along David Miliband, are urging Mr Burnham to support a New Economics foundation proposal to "restore Brown-era international aid spending." Let's hope Mr Burnham listens. ( See later for where the money could come from. )
At the same time let's hope he doesn’t listen to the trade unions wanting to preserve limitless political contributions to parties. The Tech Bros will always win.The existing proposals to limit them should go much further.
The World Cup.
I'm not a great football fan and haven't watched any of the matches, but I do know enough to be aware that Jude Bellingham, who scored the two goals which will take us to the semi-final, is "a person of colour." I've looked up his origins on Google and apparently he's of Irish extraction on his Mother's side and Jamaican from his Father.
Just the sort of cocktail that exemplifies what is best of modern Britain.
And he's not alone A friend who actually did watch the quarter-final tells me that, by the end of the game, only four of England’s players were "White British" and the other seen were all "persons of colour." One of them was even a Muslim. Wow!
I wonder if those responsible for draping our lampposts with now-fading Union Flags and St George's Crosses in the name of patriotism, but with the barely veiled threat of "no foreigners here," many if not most of them probably enthusiastic soccer fans, are capable of putting two and two together?
Hold-ups at Dover and Elsewhere
As most schools break up by the end of this week there is increasing anxiety and some anger.about delays caused by border checks at Dover and other crossings.
I hope that those who are delayed and who voted for Brexit, and are still spouting "we must control our borders," are able to put two and two together.
As Global Justice Now" points out, most people are fully in favour of "free movement" - for themselves. It's others whose freedoms should be curtailed (see five posts on this blog in May 2025).
Where's the money to come from?
Mr Burnham is being urged to adopt of policy proposed by the Institute of Global Prosperity at University College London, called Prosperity 2030. According to the Guardian on 10th July, the proposal is that six key taxes, including;
income tax;
capital gains tax;
inheritance tax
national Insurance contritions;
should be rolled into one and all collected at the same rate.
I haven't yet read the details, but I do understand that the UK's taxes are far too complicated after years of minor adjustments to placate this that and the other special interests, and massive simplification should be the order of the day.
Genuine commiserations to Scotland. Come on England !
As Global Justice Now" points out, most people are fully in favour of "free movement" - for themselves
ReplyDeleteYou know, it’s impressive how not only are you utterly ignorant about how those you disagree with think, not only are you totally incurious about remedying you ignorance, but even when told you are wrong, the information simply bounces off your closed mind.
Most people are not in favour of ‘free movement for themselves’. Most people (and I am among them) think that all countries have the right (indeed the duty) to police their borders, which means that I have, and should have, no more right to go live in another country than someone from another country should have to live in Britain.
Do you ever speak to people who are anti-free-movement? Or is your silo complete and impenetrable? If you do ever speak to someone who is against free movement, I suggest you ask them: ‘so do you think that you should have the automatic right to go live and work in the United States, or Canada, or Australia, or France; or do you think that those countries have the right to set their own immigration rules, even if those rules exclude you?’
I bet 100% of them will say that they think other countries have the right to exclude them.
various independent research has found that over 80% of people in the EU support the EU's freedom of movement policy (now no longer applicable in the UK thanks to Brexit) rising to over 90% amongst young people generally
DeleteSuch freedom of movement has been found to boost national GDP, productivity and tax revenues
Peter, you're right about the tax situation in the UK. It's a total mess and suffer from the fact that it's never been properly designed as such but incrementally - and opportunistically - tinkered with over time
DeleteMy starter for 10 would be:
- everyone gets a tax free allowance based on a minimum acceptable standard of living (not the miserly present allowance) set by an independent body
- any income (from any and all sources) is then taxed
- tax rates incrementally with steps of (say) 5% - eg lowest band pays 5% above the allowance, then 10%, then 15% etc
This is administratively made possible with technology. At present there are just 3 basic bands (20%, 40%, 45%) creating disincentives
- abolish all taxes that have been imposed as an easy way of raising revenue eg Insurance Premium Tax leveled on insurance policies (eg car, home, travel) at between 12% and 20%. The consumer gets no benefit for this and the disincentivise
Peter, Overseas Aid
DeleteI find it appalling that the UK - one of the richest countries - does so little for those at the bottom
Many years ago I found myself working for several years in West Africa where poverty was everywhere and people were desperate for a hand-up not a hand-out
In terms of your Keynesian economics the difference in national marginal propensity to consume suggest a much higher multiplier effect in the poorer countries from a boost in investment & spending
various independent research has found that over 80% of people in the EU support the EU's freedom of movement policy (now no longer applicable in the UK thanks to Brexit) rising to over 90% amongst young people generally
DeleteWhich is not incompatible with what I said. Believing a country has an absolute right and duty to control immigration is entirely compatible with thing that control should be used to establish reciprocal free movement with selected compatible countries.
Such freedom of movement has been found to boost national GDP, productivity and tax revenues
Of course, some people quite reasonably think that there are things (eg, national identity) that are immensely more important than national GDP, productivity and tax revenues.
Oh no - another red herring! "National identity"
Deletelet's call it for what it is - white and anglo-saxon and speaking "proper" English (whatever that means these days)
But let's not forget that Britain is a mongrel nation made up of different peoples over the centuries
Celts, Romans (who were from all over Europe, North Africa, middle east) , Anglo-Saxons, Norse/Danes, Normans aka French ... the list goes on and on
And let's not forget that the current monarch - Charlie 3 - had a Greek father and the family tree from Russia, Germany, Denmark among others.
Oh and the Windsors changed their family name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
How British is that?
let's call it for what it is - white and anglo-saxon and speaking "proper" English (whatever that means these days)
DeleteIf you like. I don’t like to get hung up on terminology.
But let's not forget that Britain is a mongrel nation made up of different peoples over the centuries
Celts, Romans (who were from all over Europe, North Africa, middle east) , Anglo-Saxons, Norse/Danes, Normans aka French ... the list goes on and on
Celts yes, Romans no (they arrived and then left, but never interbred with the locals and left basically zero long-term traces, either culturally or genetically), Anglo-Saxons and Norse yes, and that takes us to 1067 or so.
And then basically zero immigration from the eleventh century to the middle of the twentieth.
Far from being a ‘mongrel nation’, Britain was for all the second millennium one of the most stable nations in the world, demographically speaking.
And let's not forget that the current monarch - Charlie 3 - had a Greek father
Um, no, he didn’t. The late Duke of Edinburgh wasn’t Greek. He was Danish, as was the whole Greek royal family at the time.
Oh and the Windsors changed their family name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
How British is that?
Pretty darn British. It would not be a terrible idea to require all immigrant families to change their names to something more British, to prove their patriotism, do you not think?
What an answer!
DeleteHad me laughing for a long time. If you call yourself “British” you should be embarrassed at showing your ignorance of English history.
I’m an eternal optimist so always hope that passing on knowledge can be helpful. Maybe not for you though but I’ll try.
You say:
The Romans “left”, never interbred, zero long term traces
Cloud cuckoo land.
The Romans “left”
Oh really? The army was recalled to Europe. Historians agree that a Romano-British culture and society emerged over time. This didn’t “leave” nor did the many officials who were part of the governing infrastructure nor did the many retired army personnel who stayed here.
No inbreeding?
An occupying army of thousands of (male) troops over 400 years who don’t fraternise with the local women?
Are you crazy or just naïve?
No long term traces?
The Romans controlled England & Wales for almost 400 years – that’s the equivalent of a period from Elizabeth I to the Millenium. There hardly a place you go to in England that doesn’t have signs of the Roman impact (if you bother to look)
Other Impact?
Infrastructure – roads, buildings, urban and military settlements
Written language and record keeping, an annual calendar
International trade, a common currency
Technology, water supplies, sewage, construction techniques and engineering, heating
The list goes on as usual
Chuckle #2
You say
And then basically zero immigration from the eleventh century to the middle of the twentieth.
European Jews after the Norman conquest
foreign skilled workers, particularly Flemish and Dutch in the early Middle Ages
Huguenots from France in 16th and 17th centuries
Mass migration from Ireland in the early Industrial Revolution
Polish and Russian jews escaping religious persecution in the 1800s
African, West African and Indian/Pakistani immigration from the 1700s onwards
The list goes on and on. How many blue blood Brits left do you think?
Chuckle #3
And let's not forget that the current monarch - Charlie 3 - had a Greek father
You say:
Um, no, he didn’t. The late Duke of Edinburgh wasn’t Greek. He was Danish, as was the whole Greek royal family at the time.
He was born on Corfu; he was called Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark (note the sequence); his father was Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark who was a son of King George I of Greece and Private Eye always referred to him as Phil the Greek!
But as usual you miss the point – that Britain is a mongrel nation of wide breeding of many nationalities. It’s what Britain has thrived on historically and made the country what it is today.
Chuckle #4
Oh and the Windsors changed their family name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
How British is that?
You say:
Pretty darn British. It would not be a terrible idea to require all immigrant families to change their names to something more British, to prove their patriotism, do you not think?
What names like Morgan? Or MacDuff? Or Kelly?
What should Mo Farah call himself?
Or the black England football players?
Pathetic. Be proud of your roots and your contribution to British culture. Don’t hide it flaunt it.
(And of course you’re “anonymous” !! )
An occupying army of thousands of (male) troops over 400 years who don’t fraternise with the local women?
DeleteIndeed they did not. The genetic evidence is clear: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2525923-huge-study-of-ancient-british-dna-reveals-only-minor-roman-influence/
European Jews after the Norman conquest
Just before the Jews were expelled in the thirteenth century there were about 3,000 Jews in Britain, out of a population probably somewhere north of four million. So about 0.075% of the population, give or take. So yes, I think that counts as 'basically zero'.
foreign skilled workers, particularly Flemish and Dutch in the early Middle Ages
I don't have exact figures for those numbers, but I'm going to say, unless you can produce evidence to the contrary, that we're still talking in the same order of magnitude as the Jews in the thirteenth century, ie, less than 0.01% of the opulation, and that definitely counts as 'basically zero'.
Huguenots from France in 16th and 17th centuries
About 50,000 Huguenots came to Britain, into a population which was at that time about nine and a half million (or just over five million if you just consider England). So 0.01% of the population of England. Again, that's basically zero, isn't it?
Mass migration from Ireland in the early Industrial Revolution
The Irish weren't 'immigrants'. You can't be an immigrant if you're just moving from one part of a country to a different part of the same country.
Polish and Russian jews escaping religious persecution in the 1800s
By 1900 the Jewish population of Britain was about 100,000 to 200,000, out of a total population of about 32 million (as per the 1901 census). So about 0.006% of the population. That's even more basically zero than anything else so far, and everything else so far has been basically zero!
African, West African and Indian/Pakistani immigration from the 1700s onwards
So I can't find breakdowns, but in the 1901 census the total number of respondents from the 'British colonies and India' was 136,092. Again using the 32 million figure for the total population, that's about 0.004% of the population. so again, yes, basically zero.
So unless you can find a problem in either my figures or my maths, or you can find a figure for the number of Flemish and Dutch immigrants and it's truly stupendous, I think you have to admit that I am right and that there was in fact, over that period, basically zero immigration. Apology accepted.
What names like Morgan? Or MacDuff? Or Kelly?
DeleteWhat should Mo Farah call himself?
I don’t know. I have never wanted to be anything but British; to be born British is, after all, to have won the lottery of life. But if I did love another country so much that I wanted to renounce my attachments to Britain in order to pledge my allegiance to that country instead, then I probably would want to make some kind of sign of my new loyalty.
So if people love Britain so much that they want to renounce their previous loyalties and become British, well, for one thing I welcome them (why would I not? They have after all just realised what I have always known, that Britain is the best country in the world) but if they don’t want to make any kind of sign doesn’t that suggest that maybe they still have some residual loyalty to their previous country, and are not fully committed to becoming British and putting Britain above all else? In which case they should not become British (after all, the reason I could never become a citizen of any other country is that I could never imagine putting loyalty to any new country above my loyalty to Britain).
(Becoming a citizen of a country, after all, is not a mere administrative detail of residency rights and what crest is on your passport; it is about love and loyalty. It as about, if the chips were down and you had to, would you take up arms and possibly give your life in defence of your country? If you can’t say you would die for a country then you should not become a citizen of that country. That is, again, why I could never become a citizen of any other country; it would not be right for me to do so when I would not fight for any country but Britain.)
DeleteAn occupying army of thousands of (male) troops over 400 years who don’t fraternise with the local women?
DeleteIndeed they did not. The genetic evidence is clear: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2525923-huge-study-of-ancient-british-dna-reveals-only-minor-roman-influence/
better read the small print of the article.
Based on only a 1000 samples and guess what - cremation was the main type of practice at that time and - guess what - you can't extract much DNA from the ashes!
Immigration
Deletea) you're equating numbers with economic and cultural impact, The Normans totalled only about 8000-10000 and look what they did!
b) regional distribution of immigrants varied considerably (as today). Its estimated that Hugeonots comprised over 5% of the population of London.
"So if people love Britain so much that they want to renounce their previous loyalties and become British, well, for one thing I welcome them (why would I not? "
DeleteSo immigrants to the UK (wherever they're from) who've made a conscious choice to come here should be welcomed by all then?
Mass migration from Ireland in the early Industrial Revolution
Delete"The Irish weren't 'immigrants'. "
tell that to an Irishman and get ready to run fast
"some people quite reasonably think that there are things (eg, national identity)"
DeleteSo what's your description of the British "national identity" and how does this differ from that of England?
So what's your description of the British "national identity"
DeleteFeeling, at a gut level, a love of, connection to and pride in a thousand years of British history and all the great things that Britain has achieved.
how does this differ from that of England?
English national identity is a specific sub-type of British national identity, like Scottish, Welsh and Ulster identities.
National identity
DeleteI though so - more muddled thinking. "a thousand years of British history"
.The Kingdom of Great Britain first became a unified political entity in 1707 so we have just over 300 years of history
Or just over 200 years since 1801, when it merged with the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
Or just over 100 years since 1927, after the partition of Ireland and the secession of the Irish Free State in 1922.
take your pick - and given the definition of "the nation" changed over those periods so did the description of "national identity"
So, in your view, how does an immigrant demonstrate their connection to your national identity?
Sing the national anthem? Play cricket? Change their name?
So, in your view, how does an immigrant demonstrate their connection to your national identity?
DeleteIf someone really loves Britain, it will be obvious from interacting with them. Only a fool would boil something so fundamental to one's character down to twee checklists.
Based on only a 1000 samples and guess what - cremation was the main type of practice at that time and - guess what - you can't extract much DNA from the ashes!
DeleteSo your only comeback is to deny the science? Well, I guess we know what to think of that.
a) you're equating numbers with economic and cultural impact, The Normans totalled only about 8000-10000 and look what they did!
I'm responding to the claim 'Britain is a mongrel nation made up of different peoples over the centuries'. That's not a claim about 'economic and cultural impact'. That's a claim about how a people is 'made up'; ie, it's about demographics, not culture.
b) regional distribution of immigrants varied considerably (as today). Its estimated that Hugeonots comprised over 5% of the population of London.
Yes; so what? the claim was that 'Britain is a mongrel nation'. If the claim was 'London has always been a highly international city' then I would have agreed because that is obviously true. But the claim wasn't about London; it was about Britain. And Britain, which is much bigger than just London, was not a 'mongrel nation' until the middle of the twentieth century.
So immigrants to the UK (wherever they're from) who've made a conscious choice to come here should be welcomed by all then?
Absolutely, as long as they are the right kind of immigrants: smart, hard-working immigrants of good character who speak English, from compatible cultures who are eager to change themselves to fit in with our ways, and contribute to the success of the greatest country on Earth. We should welcome those immigrants, wherever they are from and whatever they look like, and I haven't hard anyone say anything different.
Obviously we don't want the dross of the world: the criminals, the ones who can't or won't work, the ones who will set up parallel societies rather than integrating, the ones who will take out of the treasury more than they put in. We shouldn't welcome them. But we should welcome the good ones, the cream of what the world has to offer.
tell that to an Irishman and get ready to run fast
Why would I run? It's simply a fact that at that time Ireland was part of the same country as England. I will tel that to any Irishman and far from running, he can run back to his shithole republic.
"the right kind of immigrants: smart, hard-working immigrants of good character who speak English, from compatible cultures"
DeleteI knew it would come to this
"smart" - not sure what you mean by that. Is someone coming to Britain to be a care worker "smart"?
"hard working" Don't have a problem with that. Virtually all the migrants I've met (a lot) come here to make a better future for themselves not to claim benefits. I met one female migrant a while ago who knocked on my office door. She was the cleaner and said she'd knocked because she recognised my surname came from her original home country. We got talking. When she finished her cleaning job, she was off to stack shelves at the local supermarket, and then do an evening shift in one of the local small shops. She was doing all this while her husband - a qualified dentist in her original home country - was studying to retake his professional exams as he couldn't yet practice in the UK. British? No - but I wish she were
"speak English" - my father was an immigrant without a word of English when he arrived. Never claimed any benefit while he was working for over 40 years (unlike the local Brits who were his neighbours).
"compatible cultures" - as I said you mean they play cricket , take tea in the afternoon ....
"smart" - not sure what you mean by that. Is someone coming to Britain to be a care worker "smart"?
DeleteProbably not. We shouldn't be recruiting care workers from overseas — we should be withdrawing benefits from idle Brits until they get off their lazy backsides and go to work as care workers.
"hard working" Don't have a problem with that. Virtually all the migrants I've met (a lot)
A lot but, and this is important, a non-random, self-selected sample. All the immigrants you've met have been hard-working because you don't meet the ones who just live in their own separate communities on benefits. Because those ones don't go to places where you are likely to meet them.
"speak English" - my father was an immigrant without a word of English when he arrived. Never claimed any benefit while he was working for over 40 years (unlike the local Brits who were his neighbours).
Nevertheless, I think it's reasonable to expect any immigrant today who wants to come and work here to learn English — at least enough to get by — before they arrive. If I wanted to go and live in, say, Germany, I wouldn't turn up not speaking a word of German. Do you not think it's fair to expect the same of someone wanting to live here that I would expect of myself if I wanted to live elsewhere?
(Of course this is up to the individual country. If a country wants to accept immigrants who don't speak the language because of the economic benefit they bring — for example Spain accepting British people who want to spend their retirement savings there — then that's entirely a matter for that country. But I think that Britain should be more choosy than Spain. We are, after all, the Cambridge of nations and so can afford to turn away all but the very best, while other nations are more like Durham and have to take the dregs and dunces.)
"compatible cultures" - as I said you mean they play cricket , take tea in the afternoon ....
No, nothing to do with tea or cricket. If you want me to be blunt, I think the nearest I could say is cultures which have either a Jewish or a Christian basis. So, for example, Nigerians with a Christian background, definitely, they are great, very compatible immigrants and bring a lot to the country.
He was born on Corfu;
ReplyDeleteIf I had been born while my parents were in Shanghai, would I be Chinese? Of course not. So being born on Corfu is irrelevant.
he was called Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark (note the sequence); his father was Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark who was a son of King George I of Greece and
Being King of Greece was his job, not his ethnicity. He wasn't actually Greek. As you keep pointing out, several members of the British Royal family have not been British.
Private Eye always referred to him as Phil the Greek!
Unfunny 'satirical' magazine are not, in fact (and this will come as a shock to you I know) an infallible source of true facts.
Oh dear - wrong again! (you're getting good at this)
DeletePrince Philip was a Greek citizen at birth.
Born on the island of Corfu on June 10, 1921, he was officially titled Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark. As a member of the Greek royal family (the House of Glücksburg), he held Greek citizenship from birth.
He formally renounced his Greek royal titles and citizenship on February 28, 1947, to become a naturalized British subject in order to marry Princess Elizabeth. He adopted the surname Mountbatten at this time.
Easy enough to check on the internet
If I had been born while my parents were in Shanghai, would I be Chinese?
DeleteYou're confusing nationality and ethnicity
Birthright citizenship is automatically given in a number of countries including the US (as Boris Johnson found to his cost)
You're confusing nationality and ethnicity
DeleteNo, you are confusing citizenship and ethnicity. The late Duke of Edinburgh had Greek citizenship, but that in no sense makes him ethnically Greek; so your claim above that 'the current monarch - Charlie 3 - had a Greek father' is wrong. The late Duke was not Greek in any meaningful; he just held Greek citizenship.
What? He was a a Greek citizen but wasn't Greek?
DeleteDo you bother reading what you've written before you post?
What? He was a a Greek citizen but wasn't Greek?
DeleteYes. As you pointed out, citizenship and ethnicity are different things. It is perfectly possible to a be a Greek citizen but not ethnically Greek.
as usual missing the point - which is that the current monarch - held up as the pinnacle of Britishness - had an immigrant non-British father
DeleteI actually class that as a benefit rather than a problem as I'm all for a mongrel nation.
So "acceptable" immigration should be based on ethnicity according to you?
Delete"citizenship and ethnicity are different things"
the current monarch - held up as the pinnacle of Britishness - had an immigrant non-British father
DeleteOh, yes, His Majesty did have a foreign father (a Danish father, to be precise). But also a mother who could trace her ancestry back to William I, which is rather more important.
So "acceptable" immigration should be based on ethnicity according to you?
Not at all. I've set out above what acceptable immigration is: smart, hard-working immigrants of good character who speak English, from compatible cultures who are eager to change themselves to fit in with our ways, and contribute to the success of the greatest country on Earth.
We want the cream of the crop, don't we?
"hard working" Don't have a problem with that. Virtually all the migrants I've met (a lot)
Delete"A lot but, and this is important, a non-random, self-selected sample. All the immigrants you've met have been hard-working because you don't meet the ones who just live in their own separate communities on benefits."
Oh dear.
I was brought up in an immigrant family in an immigrant community
So how many of those who “just live in their own separate communities on benefits” do you regularly encounter?
Fewer than me I’m sure.
And as usual for people with similar attitudes and prejudices you’re conflating economic migrants with asylum seekers/.refugees.
ALL the research shows that economic migrants – wherever they’re from – make an overall net contribution to the country. They have to meet language requirements and employment criteria.
asylum seekers/.refugees are in a different category and the system for dealing with these needs a major overhaul so they do not need to be on minimal benefits for as long as they are or live in the ghettos to which they’re consigned
"compatible cultures" - as I said you mean they play cricket , take tea in the afternoon ....
"No, nothing to do with tea or cricket. If you want me to be blunt, I think the nearest I could say is cultures which have either a Jewish or a Christian basis. So, for example, Nigerians with a Christian background, definitely, they are great, very compatible immigrants and bring a lot to the country."
But a Nigerian Muslim wouldn’t “bring a lot to the country” I take it? And a Hasidic Jew would fit right into British culture and society I take it?
I was brought up in an immigrant family in an immigrant community
DeleteI won't be responding to personal anecdotes, because anecdotes have no place in seriou discussion. Please stick to principles or hard data.
So how many of those who “just live in their own separate communities on benefits” do you regularly encounter?
None, obviously, because how would I meet them when they stick to their own separate communities?
ALL the research shows that economic migrants – wherever they’re from – make an overall net contribution to the country.
That's not true. See: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
'In 2025, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) estimated the lifetime fiscal impacts of migrants who entered the UK in the year ending March 2023 on different visa routes. The MAC estimated that, on average, main applicants on Skilled Worker visas (i.e., in non-health and care jobs) and the Health and Care visa would make a positive contribution to the public finances, while care workers, Health and Care dependants, and the partners of British citizens have a net negative lifetime fiscal impact (Figure 2).'
So some economic migrants make anet contribution to the economy, and others are a net drain.
So...
They have to meet language requirements and employment criteria.
... while this is true, there is still scope to tighten up those criteria to keep out the economic migrants who would make a net drain, and make sure we only let in the ones who will make a net contribution.
And, of course, the economy isn't everything. Even if someone would make a net positive contribution to the economy, we still want to keep them out if they would, either individually or in aggregate, harm national identity.
Remember that the main point of our immigration system is to benefit Britain by allowing in the best and the brightest and those who will fit in. It is not to benefit the migrants.
But a Nigerian Muslim wouldn’t “bring a lot to the country” I take it?
No, absolutely not. You know what Islam in Nigeria is? It's Boko Haram. Do you want people from the culture which produced Boko Haram living in Britain? I certainly don't. We should absolutely be keeping out Nigerian Muslims (while letting in Nigerian Christians).
And a Hasidic Jew would fit right into British culture and society I take it?
Yes.
And a Hasidic Jew would fit right into British culture and society I take it?
DeleteYes
You must live in a different part of Britain to me
Explain to me how they assimilate and take on the "national identity"
DeleteSo how many of those who “just live in their own separate communities on benefits” do you regularly encounter?
DeleteNone, obviously, because how would I meet them when they stick to their own separate communities?
But "you don't meet the ones who just live in their own separate communities on benefits"
So you don't meet them, don't know them but yet "know" that they live in their separate communities on benefits!
Wonderful nonsense
You must live in a different part of Britain to me
DeleteI have no idea what you are talking about. Hasidic Jews are peaceful, moral people. Why would they not fit in anywhere in Britain?
They aren’t Islamist terrorists like Boko Haram.
Explain to me how they assimilate and take on the "national identity"
It’s not really something you can ‘explain’. Can someone explain how they came to love their wife or husband, and assimilate into their new family? It’s the same thing. A nation is a family home, not a hotel, so assimilating means becoming part of the family.
'In 2025, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) estimated the lifetime fiscal impacts of migrants who entered the UK in the year ending March 2023 on different visa routes. The MAC estimated that, on average, main applicants on Skilled Worker visas (i.e., in non-health and care jobs) and the Health and Care visa would make a positive contribution to the public finances, while care workers, Health and Care dependants, and the partners of British citizens have a net negative lifetime fiscal impact (Figure 2).'
Delete"So some economic migrants make a net contribution to the economy, and others are a net drain."
It's always dangerous to rely on secondary (or later) information.
The "main applicant" care worker (ie those who actually come and take a job) have a cumulative
net fiscal impact peaking at around £15 billion
Predictably its the non-working dependents AND partners of Brit citizens who have negative fiscal impact of around £1 billion. So Britain benefits plus £15 billion minus £1 billion is .... have a guess.
And I wonder what the net fiscal effect is of those native Brits on benefits?
Now THAT would be an interesting comparison wouldn't it?
So you don't meet them, don't know them but yet "know" that they live in their separate communities on benefits!
DeleteIndeed; because data is what matters, no personal anecdote.
The "main applicant" care worker (ie those who actually come and take a job) have a cumulative
Deletenet fiscal impact peaking at around £15 billion
Predictably its the non-working dependents AND partners of Brit citizens who have negative fiscal impact of around £1 billion. So Britain benefits plus £15 billion minus £1 billion is .... have a guess.
I don't know where you are getting these figures in billions. Have a look at the figure at: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/migobs/viz/Fiscalimpacts-2026/2
An immigrant care worker has a net negative fiscal impact of £36,000 over their lifetime. That at a stroke tells you we need to do something: either ban immigrant care workers entirely, or make their visa time-limited so that they can only stay in Britain while they are economically active, and have to go back home when they would start yo be a drain on the state,
A main-applicant Health and Care visa holder has a net positive financial contribution of £166,000, but each dependant has a negative drain of £109,000. So if a Health and care applicant brings over two dependants, that more than wipes out their entire contribution, and the more dependants they bring over the worse it gets. So obviously we need to stop Health and care visa applicant form bringing over any dependants (or at an absolute minimum restrict it to one dependant per visa-holder).
A holder of a skilled worker visa, on the other hand, gives a massive net positive lifetime contribution of £689,000! So actually perhaps the best thing to do would be to just junk Health and care visa entirely and only allow in skilled workers (who could then bring up to, say, three dependants).
That would be a much better system, wouldn't you agree?
And I wonder what the net fiscal effect is of those native Brits on benefits?
Now THAT would be an interesting comparison wouldn't it?
Not massively. Britons on benefits are a totally separate category; it wuld be comparing apples and oranges.
However, it is absolutely true that far too much is paid out on benefits to the wrong people, and we need to reduce welfare spending on native Britons by a factor of two or more.
Hasidic Jews are peaceful, moral people. Why would they not fit in anywhere in Britain?
DeleteHang on. Surely you can't be suggesting that the reason they might not fit in is just because they wear funny hats? How superficial can you get? It doesn't matter how people dress.
YOU have a look at the source you cited
Deletehttps://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
Hasidic Jews are peaceful, moral people. Why would they not fit in anywhere in Britain?
DeleteHang on. Surely you can't be suggesting that the reason they might not fit in is just because they wear funny hats? How superficial can you get? It doesn't matter how people dress.
Absolutely right
Hasidic communities in the UK actively maintain a distinct identity and language, viewing separation from secular society as essential to their community
I don't have a problem with that at all - but according to you:
"smart, hard-working immigrants of good character who speak English, from compatible cultures who are eager to change themselves to fit in with our ways"
Wonder how many have anglicised their name to demonstrate their commitment to your national identity?
Hasidic communities in the UK actively maintain a distinct identity and language, viewing separation from secular society as essential to their community
DeleteHasidic Jews in Britain can speak English. They may not speak English at home, but who cares? And their culture is compatible with ours; crucially, they almost never blow themselves up on public transport or at concert halls, or go on stabbing sprees.
So yes. They fit in fine and I am glad to have them in Britain.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
Yes, that's where the figures showing that foreign care workers are a net negative on the economy, and that even a Health and Care visa applicant's contribution is more than wiped out by two dependants, come from. I don't understand what else you are trying to say.
Look at Figure 3 in the context of care workers . If you can't make senses of it in the context of my earlier post let me know and I'll explain it to you
DeleteLook at Figure 3 in the context of care workers
DeleteFigure 3 doesn’t have care workers on it. I don’t know why figure 2 has care workers and figure 3 doesn’t, but there it is, so if you want to talk about care workers we have to use the numbers from figure 2, not figure 3.
and Fig 1 shows that 2 categories of migrant workers generate more fiscal impact that a UK brit
Deletehere's an advert for you to put in The Bigot Times:
ReplyDeleteImmigrants wanted!
Must come from a good clean home
Christians and Jews preferred.
Good English a must and should be prepared to anglicise all your names on arrival
Educated to A level (or equivalent) standard
Clean driving licence.
Must have a return ticket
Shame you're too late to stand in Clacton - you'd have taken votes away from Farage
BTW - what are your views on refugees and asylum seekers? I'm almost afraid to ask
That sounds like a great advertisement. Remember the point of an immigration system is to benefit the country receiving the immigrants, not to benefit the immigrants, so we should be as choosy as possible — and as a highly-in-demand country we can afford to be highly choosy. We want the best, not the dregs.
Deletewhat are your views on refugees and asylum seekers
I think we have a moral duty to take a strictly-capped number of genuine (ie, people under genuine threat of politically or religiously motivated persecution, not just people from unpleasant countries or countries where the laws aren’t as we would like or failed states) refugees.
Figure 3 doesn’t have care workers on it. I don’t know why figure 2 has care workers and figure 3 doesn’t,
DeleteThis blog doesn't seem to allow screenshots but Fig 3 allows shows Health & Care main applicants). Click on Cumulative. Hover on the curve around 30 years and you'll see the Figure I quoted c. £15 billion as the net cumulative fiscal impact
This blog doesn't seem to allow screenshots but Fig 3 allows shows Health & Care main applicants).
DeleteRight, not care workers (who as per figure 2 are separate from Health & Care (main applicants)).
they're the same group
ReplyDeletethey're the same group
DeleteNo, they’re not. Look at figure 2, where they are listed separately.
and Fig 1 shows that 2 categories of migrant workers generate more fiscal impact that a UK brit
Deleteand Fig 1 shows that 2 categories of migrant workers generate more fiscal impact that a UK brit
DeleteSo you would agree then that we should encourage applicants from immigrants in those categories, and block immigrants in other categories, the ones who are a net cost to the coming, from coming to Britain (and remove the ones already here)?
your own logical conclusion should be that we encourage migrants in these categories and encourage/pay Brits to emigrate (although who would have them?)
Deleteinteresting that Burnham's first declaration as PM but I wonder if he's been told this is a devolved responsibility?
ReplyDelete