Yet you fail to address the point I make. The first problem migrants cost is accomodation. That costs serious money: indeed costs everyone serious money because of too much demand on restricted supply.Originally Posted by noel
Yet you fail to address the point I make. The first problem migrants cost is accomodation. That costs serious money: indeed costs everyone serious money because of too much demand on restricted supply.
Suppose the issue is you can build more houses, schools, hospitals, etc. but you can't make more people to fill vacant employment positions, unless we all start breeding more to make more babies.
Noel a little while ago you eventually answered my persistent question: do you believe in an open border to the UK? You stated you didn't. If you really believe migration has been a monetary positive for the country why don't you support open borders?
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u...ion-in-the-uk/
have a read. There are others but you have to be careful as some of the stuff out there is politically driven so makes more of a case one way or another.
The research is lacking because of a variety of factors which include past Govt reluctance to monitor effectively, difficulty for accounting who is actually here due to freedom of movement eg. The applications for NI numbers is about double the migration figures.
You see it's not as simple as saying Billy earns £20k and his partner works part-time and earns £6k. 2 kids in school. Tax from income is £3k and indirect taxes £5k and so they are contributors at the rate of £8k per year.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peo...esv3final.xlsx
This is bloody complicated, but it does give you a taste of the average cost of a person to the state. Those tax receipts would not cover the cost of just education and health for an average person.
Most of us in reality are a tax burden on the state, as we don't tend to become fiscally tax positive until we earn well above average household income.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
Well if Johnson is a yard stick I suggest that makes Noel eminently worthy PM material.
My how we laughed when America elected Trump.
"...as dry as the Atacama desert".
What is really hilarious, is we do not even get a say in electing Britain's Donald Trump.
Why should you,or I, get a say or vote in who should be the leader of the Conservative Party. Are you a member? If not, and you want a vote, join the organisation.
Would you be happy for the 50 million ish registered voters in the UK to vote for club positions at Pennine? Probably not and like other clubs/organisations only paid up members vote.
Can you tell me when you have previously had a say or voted for a Prime Minister? I have never had the opportunity.
Visibility good except in Hill Fog
I don't know why you think so. This just happens to be our constitution. We don't vote for a Prime minister as such. The Prime minister is the leader of the party that can command a majority in the House of Commons.
There is a long history of new Prime ministers taking over without a general election. I.e Teresa May, Gordon Brown, John Major, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas-Home. What would be the reason to change this convention now?
As it happens I expect there will be a general election by the autumn anyway since the Government doesn't have a working majority and because of the Brexit impasse.
I know it is the constitution, it is still hilarious to think a baboon like him will be leading the country.
Thank you for that backhanded compliment.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote