Controversial

[RogueHanger]

Previously the government ministers used to say that for every 100 migrants, 23 indigenous workers were displaced. (that means they were unemployed as a result of the migrants,

So your saying , as a direct result of immigration, 23 UK workers were either sacked or made redundant ??
I perhaps look at this far to simplistically.. If 100 immigrants come here and get 100 jobs, then they've actually caused 100 Brits to remain unemployed. They've not caused 23 to lose their jobs, nor have they kept only 23 on the dole.
Anyway,, that's by the by now as Cameron has decided that even 23 is far too high a figure (the one his civil servants have arrived at) The report is now being delayed, until the correct figures can be worked out ( what they really mean is, the report has been delayed until the true figures have been massaged, to appease the voting public)

Not me saying it. It was Mrs May saying it, but the new report seems to suggest that the number displaced is negligible. That suggests that the net effect on British jobs (for British people acc. Gordon Brown. ) is negligible in the employment arena.

 

[RogueHanger]

(thinly disguised abuse etc)

#

I didn't think I was disguising it that thinly.

 

[jockscott]

Surely your username should be Rouge Hareng ??

PS the "new" report, is nothing of the sort. It's the report the government were going to publish, before realising it might upset most of the electorate. As I've said previously, they're massaging the figures now, to lessen the impact.. It wouldn't surprise me if the report (when published) tells us that for every 100 immigrants coming here, 23 jobs are actually created for Brits.

 

[Whitespirit66]

I wonder whether there is some obscure rule (possibly from Brussels) that every discussion forum must have at least one troll on its books for the sake of 'diversity'!

I'm afraid that the internet is littered with sad cases, desperate to display their personality defects. Belittling people online helps them get away from their complete insignificance in the real world and helps them boost a flagging ego.

He's not the first, JB. They don't last long, but unfortunately will be quickly replaced by another one desperate to prove something that eludes them in real life.

Best not to feed.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

I have to go out now. Still blowing my own horn!.

Mate, do it private FFS. Good flexibility though, well done.

 

[Whitespirit66]

 

[JBR]

I wonder whether there is some obscure rule (possibly from Brussels) that every discussion forum must have at least one troll on its books for the sake of 'diversity'!

I'm afraid that the internet is littered with sad cases, desperate to display their personality defects. Belittling people online helps them get away from their complete insignificance in the real world and helps them boost a flagging ego.

He's not the first, JB. They don't last long, but unfortunately will be quickly replaced by another one desperate to prove something that eludes them in real life.

Best not to feed.

Wise advice. Let's hope that the forum members who actually contribute to this forum take it.

 

[RogueHanger]

Aaahh, the gathering of the clan of idiots! Why am I not surprised. Or as another might put it: the gathering of the idiotic Klan. So the faceless white sheets still talk nonesense.

@ jockscot, you're completely missing the point, in the withholding of the report. The Report (acc Nick Robinson BBC) sugests that there is negligible effect on indigenous workers jobs. This is what Mrs May did not want to hear because that would thow their "immigration policies" into disarray. She'd previously been quoting a figure of 23 displaced UK workers for every 100 migrants, which justified the Govenment's immigration stance, thereby, satisfying the hawks on the Conservative benches, who were in opposition to the Lib Dems.

But now the Report will suggest negligible effect on the UK workers (for every 100 migrants) Mrs May (and I assume the Conservative hardliners) want to supress the Report because it gives credence to the Lib Dems approach, and makes a mockery of the Government's previous approach.
So, if the Government attempt to massage the figures, which is hardly possible, given it's a cross-party amalgamation of other studies, Mrs May might try to massage the figure to reflect that the effect is worse than the Report suggests, not better, as you wrongly assume.
Do you understand now?
BTW, I can't use Hareng Rouge (in french, the adjective often comes after the noun. ) because it's already been used. There are other colloquial expressions I can use, such as Hareng salé or even faux problème, but these would not be anagrams of the original, like HerrNigred would be of Red Herring, but that one is already used also.

@Whitespirit (does your username suggest you're the Klan's Grand Cyclops? That ugly one with just one eye? Does that explian your peculiar perception of reality? Do you have just the one eye hole in your sheet? )
As you're having trouble with your eyesight, allow me to explain the difference between "feeding the trolls" and " baiting the trolls".
There is no appreciable difference.
So, after stating that you think it's a bad idea to feed trolls, you immediately launch into some juvenile insults, hoping to offend me, which in reality, would only bait a troll, but then you'd know all about that.
Ditto to JBR

@Mitch66. It's been a while since I've heard someone associate "blowing my horn" with sexual innuendo. But, to be honest, those days are long gone. Maybe the younger members of the bands still suffer from it, but not me anymore. I'm 92 (in the base of seven)

@the Klan, now that you've all realised that you're incapable of correctly understanding news items, you're exploiting the gang mentality of unite and throw insults because that's the only tactic you have left. Unless you're all busy importuning admin to have me thrown out because you can't withstand your silly and mistaken observations being picked apart and your immature attitudes being used against you.

But just for the craic, and Mitch:
My apologies if there are any "Rs" missing in the text. It's a new keyboard and my "R" is a bit unresponsive occasionally. So I have to give my "Rs" a bit more weight if I want some proper response from it. It might also mean that I have to go back afterwards and give it another go when I realise that there's something wrong. So apologies for any number of edits.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

I've often wondered if the length of a post indicates how desperate someone is to be "right"

 

[JBR]

The longer the post, the less likely anyone is to read it.

Being from a known troll doesn't help either!

 

[jockscott]

@ jockscot, you're completely missing the point, in the withholding of the report. The Report (acc Nick Robinson BBC) suggests that there is negligible effect on indigenous workers jobs. This is what Mrs May did not want to hear because that would throw their "immigration policies" into disarray. She'd previously been quoting a figure of 23 displaced UK workers for every 100 migrants, which justified the Government's immigration stance, thereby, satisfying the hawks on the Conservative benches, who were in opposition to the Lib Dems.

But now the Report will suggest negligible effect on the UK workers (for every 100 migrants) Mrs May (and I assume the Conservative hardliners) want to suppress the Report because it gives credence to the Lib Dems approach, and makes a mockery of the Government's previous approach.
So, if the Government attempt to massage the figures, which is hardly possible, given it's a cross-party amalgamation of other studies, Mrs May might try to massage the figure to reflect that the effect is worse than the Report suggests, not better, as you wrongly assume.

Rouge.. let's put this in perspective... If 200,000 ( A not unreasonable estimate according to government figures for last year) immigrants arrive in the UK,,, using the original figures, this means 46,000 British workers are "displaced" ( as you so quaintly put it) What this means in reality, is 46,000 Brits losing their jobs.. Are you sure your 100% happy with this situation (and to let it carry on?? ) I'm sure Mrs May will try to make the figures better (let's say only 2 Brits "displaced" instead of 23) ( I think that's what I'd call "negligible"

 

[RogueHanger]

Rouge.. let's put this in perspective... If 200,000 ( A not unreasonable estimate according to government figures for last year) immigrants arrive in the UK,,, using the original figures, this means 46,000 British workers are "displaced" ( as you so quaintly put it) What this means in reality, is 46,000 Brits losing their jobs.. Are you sure your 100% happy with this situation (and to let it carry on?? ) I'm sure Mrs May will try to make the figures better (let's say only 2 Brits "displaced" instead of 23) ( I think that's what I'd call "negligible"

You still haven't grasped the point.
Your calculation (of 46,000) would have been correct accoding to a previous report that Mrs May was also using.
However this new report suggests that the effect on UK workers is negligible (for every 100 migrants). To my mind that suggests less than 1, even approaching 0)
So even your latter figure is an exaggeration.

The real point was that Mrs May preferred the earlier report because it supported the conservative approach to immigrant policies, fuelled by popular demand, and the hawks in the party (and perhaps the increasing popularity of UKIP)
Their approach to immigration is now thrown into dissaray because there is no downside effect on indigenous workers by immigration.
Moreover, there is a hidden message in the increase in immigration: immigrants are attracted to improving economies!

Some of us may even have been aware of EU workers returning home during the downturn in the recent UK economic situation. But now the economy is improving, the immigrants want to (understandably) return to work in UK. One could ask oneself "why". Surely the answer would have to be because immigrants expect to find work!

One could even go further, perhaps: monitor the economic situation by the increase or decrease in immigration! Migrant workers seem to have an innate ability to sense the whereabouts of better prospects of work

I do, at least, respect your willingness to debate, clarify and learn from your situtation of misunderstanding the significance of the news report and the Report.
Unlike, others who fail to acknowledge their error and resort to pathetic insults in an attempt to bury their mistakes. They still haven't grapsed the difference between "feed the troll" and "bait the troll". Maybe they will understand the difference when they grow up.

My apologies to those who's attention span is insufficient to read this post. That would explain their inability to understand the average news reports. And as for the actual Report, well, I can visualise you picking it up, then dropping it because it's too thick!
So that's why your favourite news papers aren't too heavy.

 

[EFLImpudence]

So what is the result of the figures, whichever is correct?

Going on the (mis)used original numbers of 23 and 100.

When this 100 arrive and displace 23 natives, does that mean that 77 of the immigrants remain unemployed throughout their stay?
Along with the 23, that would mean unemployment rises by 100.

Or does it mean that there are 77 new jobs created and unemployment rises by 23?


As unemployment is constantly over two million, surely the displaced figure must be equal to the number of immigrants that get employed no matter what the figure actually is.
I realise that the natives may not want or are to idle or thick to do some of the jobs but that does not alter the maths, does it?

 

[RogueHanger]

For the ones with low attention span, here is the executive summary:
Don't, don't, oh yes it does.


Now the rest of my response:

So what is the result of the figures, whichever is correct?

Going on the (mis)used original numbers of 23 and 100.

When this 100 arrive and displace 23 natives, does that mean that 77 of the immigrants remain unemployed throughout their stay?
Along with the 23, that would mean unemployment rises by 100.

Or does it mean that there are 77 new jobs created and unemployment rises by 23?

Why bother trying to make sense of incorrect infomation?
If you asked me the way to Xanadu and I gave you the wrong directions, you may wonder why I gave you the incorrect information, but you wouldn't follow my directions, just to find out where you end up...............would you?
That is, in effect, what you are doing.
It was incorrect information, now move on! Unless you want to explore the reason why Mrs May was using the incorrect information, but that's another issue. As is the reason why the klan want to cling onto the incorrect information.

As unemployment is constantly over two million, surely the displaced figure must be equal to the number of immigrants that get employed no matter what the figure actually is.
I realise that the natives may not want or are to idle or thick to do some of the jobs but that does not alter the maths, does it?

There are no (or negligible) displaced workers.
You're still trying to make sense of mythical information.
Oh, I forgot, it was mythical information that the klan's raison d'etre was based on.

Actually, it does alter the maths in one way.
Assume that there are 100 new jobs created for the 100 migrants, and the real number of unemployed (indigenous non-workers) remains the same. Ergo the percentage of unemployed goes down.
In reality, the last time I looked the real number of unemployed was also down. Win - win. A double effect on the percentage of unemployed.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Fair enough but the argument holds whatever the numbers: 23:100, 2:100 or 0:100.

I find it difficult to believe that the immigrants all find work.
Presumably some or most do.
Are the ones who do being employed in jobs which did not previously exist?

So where did these jobs come from?
Newly created or no longer done by natives?
Immigration is encouraged, as it always has been, to maintain low wages; that's how it works.

It cannot be said that no immigrant plumber or electrician has displaced a native because were the immigrant not doing it then almost certainly the work would still need doing.
Perhaps a British person would consider picking cabbages for enough to live on and feed the family.