Bye Bye Green and Pleasant Land

[paulv]

1) you know this do you?

2) so if they sell their home to support living cost where do they live? and where were the other family members living to you refered to previously?

 

Im not trying to move the focus away from his man, I actually want to know what his man has to do with the OP? Why this man in particular?

 

i love how you manage to twist threads and they always end up slagging off the people that seem to have more than others.

 

He is being discussed as he is the only MP quoted in the OP. I would have thought that was quite obvious.

The area he represents is prime rural Yorkshire, and a quick google came up with his £100k claims to keep up his portfolio - at the taxpayers expense again.

Try to get over your misguided belief that I have an issue with people who "seem to have more than others". I have an issue with vested interests, parasites, and hypocrites. This man ticks all the boxes.

[flag of convenience]

So are the houses this person owns actually stopping people from obtaining affordable housing?

This is nothing new and I don't get how it stops people in rural areas anymore than people in built up areas if that is in fact the case. Personally I don't think it is.

And I stick by my first post asking what ones him owning 24 houses got to do with he OP?

 

I for one are not in favour of an over indulgence in parasitic activity even if others don't mind.

[Peccavi]

So you should be but then you are a resident in the land of the 'freshen up', more commonly known as the 'pommy shower', or the shower you have when you're not having a shower. I should be so lucky......

 

Weeeeell, it beats a golden shower hands down.

 

As I said, I am indebted to you. Without a doubt you are knowledgeable and quite innovative. I await your next brilliant idea with eager anticipation (loofah sales have gone through the roof btw; the Stock Market is reeling). Green groups are having crisis meetings because they no longer need to chain themselves to trees, their credibility is destroyed. All they needed was loofahs, and any water source would suffice.

 

Blue: that's called 'Claytons' btw.

Brown: 'lucky'? Not even to have a 'Claytons shower? You clearly have a olfactory problem. I see now why this matter so concerns you.

It's called memory by association..

 

So who are tese people that rent these houses then? And what are they doing renting in these towns? Why have the families sold these houses in the first place? Why hav they not kept them in the family so the younger ones could live in them?

 

How sad that you seem not to know why these families 'sold these houses in the first place'. You surely are able to grasp that such folks do not all deliberately deny their offspring the family home?

That there might be other compelling factors for selling?

 

It isn't difficult to work out.

 

1) you know this do you?

2) so if they sell their home to support living cost where do they live? and where were the other family members living to you refered to previously?

 

Im not trying to move the focus away from his man, I actually want to know what his man has to do with the OP? Why this man in particular?

 

i love how you manage to twist threads and they always end up slagging off the people that seem to have more than others.

 

anyway, enough said, sorry for hijacking your thread petals.

 

Blue: It's easily done isn't it?

Brown: Me too.

[simmo]

Here are some business leaders demanding that migration controls be loosened in the interests of the UK's long term fiscal survival...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/27/net-migration-cap-damages-britain

 

 

 

Some argue the opposite.

[h=1]Migration Watch UK Evidence to MAC Review on Low Skilled Work[/h] European Union 4.26

---

Summary

1. Large scale immigration by low paid workers from the EU reduces the wages of low skilled British workers, adds nothing to GDP per head but adds considerably to pressure on public services. In-work benefits are a huge incentive and must be reformed. Recommendations are at paragraph 14.

Introduction

2. Migration Watch UK believes that significant inward flows of people can detrimentally affect the chances of the native born in the labour market. In particular large flows from Eastern Europe, where wages are far lower and for whom there are no employment restrictions, are particularly detrimental to those native born workers who possess lower skills levels and especially younger workers in London. Moreover, the system of social security in the UK and the effective tax rates for the low paid distort the labour market by disincentivising work for the native born. This evidence note is confined to a discussion of low skilled migrant labour from East Europe since there has not been a direct route for non-EU workers to come to fill low skilled routes for many years.

3. We welcome the opportunity that the MAC has provided for people to submit evidence with respect to “‘real-life’ perspectives”^[1] that they may have experienced themselves or observed in their local area. This type of anecdotal evidence has for too long been disregarded by desk-based economists who have ignored what cannot be input into a spreadsheet but which has a significant impact on people’s lives.

Migrant Labour in Low-Skilled Sectors – Why do Migrants take Low Skilled Work?

4. Migration can largely be explained by two factors: employment opportunities and the wage differentials between two countries. The lower the wage relative to other countries, the greater the incentive for migration. The wage differential between East Europe and the UK largely explains the significant flow of migration from these countries following the accession of the A8 countries in 2004.

5. The wage differential continues to exist almost ten years on from accession and exists even for those who come to work in low skilled sectors where wages are topped up by in-work benefits; these can be substantial for those with a family. Migration Watch UK research has found that a family of four with a single earner working at the minimum wage would be almost four times better off in the UK than in Poland, taking account for the cost of living.^[2] A Romanian and Bulgarian^[3] family would be eight and nine times better off, respectively.^[4] The consequence of this significant pull factor is that 20 percent of people in low skilled jobs were born abroad.^[5]

Benefits of Migrant Labour for Employers

6. Business is often reluctant to admit that it is in favour of higher levels of immigration primarily because it reduces wages at the lower end and thus their costs. Businesses and employment agencies have been found to be actively recruiting overseas.

7. A number of studies have found that there has been no impact on average wages but that they have fallen at the lower end of the labour market.^[6] Large flows may also have a negative impact on workers’ conditions as an employee could be less likely to report poor working conditions for fear that their employer will replace him with a migrant worker.

8. Migrant workers can be more motivated than native born workers since their incentives to take low paid work is much greater. A migrant worker from Europe has travelled across a continent in order to find work which will increase his living standard considerably. This is in contrast to a native born worker who has a weaker incentive to work due to an unreformed benefits system which imposes significant effective rates of tax on those who move from benefits to work. As low paid workers take on more hours and earn more money benefits are withdrawn such that tax rates can be as high as 95%.^[7]

Impact of Migrant Labour

9. The economic benefit of migration largely accrues to the migrant themselves through their wages. Beyond that however there exists little economic benefit from low skilled and low paid migrant workers since they generally add to GDP at the same rate as they add to population, thus failing to increase GDP per head of the population. The National Institute for Economic and Social Research found that the medium-term impact of A8 migration to the UK on GDP per capita was likely to be ‘negligible’.^[8]

10. Although many studies have failed to find conclusive evidence of a link between EU migration and displacement of local workers in the labour market as a whole, this does not mean that there is no link between high levels of migration from Europe and youth unemployment in certain parts of the country, notably in London where one in four economically active young people are out of work. Meanwhile London sucks in East European migrants in order to fill low skilled and low paid roles. The IPPR noted in 2012 that:

 

“Employers have also become increasingly reluctant to hire teenagers, particularly in London. Only 6 per cent of UK employers, and just 3 per cent of employers in the capital, recruit straight from school. As a result, school-leavers compete with more experienced workers for the same jobs, in addition to competing with more highly qualified young people. Despite the vibrancy of London’s economy, the inward flow of migration from other regions and abroad has resulted in a highly competitive environment at the lower end of the labour market. Many of these relatively well-skilled new residents take on low paid jobs while they finish their studies or look for something better, leaving those with the weakest skills and experience more likely to be ‘squeezed out’.”

^[

⁹

^]

11. The impacts of unemployment on the individual, the family unit and on the wider community are significant and negative. There is also an impact on the taxpayer since taxes are spent on supporting those displaced from work as a result of immigration.

12. There are wider impacts on society as a result of a significant flow of migrants to the UK, including on the provision of housing, healthcare and education:

 

 

1. Between 2008 and 2033 the number of households in England was projected by DCLG to grow by 5.8 million, or 232,000 per year. Of this increase, 36% will be a result of immigration. Demand for housing is high and the government is failing to build houses at the rate that they are required. The result is higher rents and property prices as well as lengthening waiting lists for social housing.

2. While migrants who come for work are generally younger and healthier than the average person, many have gone on to start families in the UK, placing a considerable burden on maternity wards and on NHS provision for young children. The latest statistics for 2012 show that Poland remains, for the third consecutive year, the most common country of birth for non-UK born mothers in 2012; 21,000 babies were born to Polish born mothers in 2012 and between 2005 and 2012 a total of 117,500 babies have been born to Polish born mothers, placing additional demands on maternity sections and GP services.^[10]

3. The children of migrants require schooling, placing strains on schools where there is a high concentration of migrants.

 

13. Families in which the workers earn the minimum wage in low skilled work do not make sufficient tax contributions to cover the costs of the additional services that they consume so they are a net cost to the taxpayer.

Recommendations

14. Migration from East Europe cannot be restricted under the current EU framework. Similarly, the benefit system must be applied equally to all EU citizens. However, all of the major political parties believe that the EU, as it currently functions, needs changing. Within this context of reform the government should consider the following:

 

 

1. The effect of the present system of tax credits is to provide a taxpayer subsidy to foreign migrants thus encouraging still more. Therefore, no benefits or tax credits should be available to EU migrants until they have worked for five years or have achieved the status of permanent residence. EU migrants should also not be entitled to social housing until they have worked for five years. This would bring the availability of welfare for EU migrants into line with the system that governs non-EU migrants. Opponents of such an idea claim that EU migrants make few demands on the UK’s system of social security. If this is so there can be little opposition to such a move. It would reduce the economic incentive to migrate and could encourage employers to employ native born workers.

2. Medium and large companies should be required to record the number of non-UK national employees alongside the existing requirements to collect gender and ethnicity data for Equal Opportunities purposes. This data should be submitted to local Job Centres which could monitor local supply and demand for labour and could intervene in cases where the number or proportion of non-UK born employees exceeded certain limits.

3. The minimum wage should be enforced and fines collected where breaches of the law have occurred.

4. All job advertisements should be advertised in English and in the UK to prevent companies from exclusively recruiting abroad and excluding local workers.

5. It is welcome news that companies will not have to pay National Insurance in respect of employees under 21. The government should now negotiate with the EU to permit member states to confine such concessions to their own nationals in the interests of getting young people started in the work force.

 

13 December, 2013

[h=2]Notes[/h]

 

1. MAC, Call for Evidence: Review of Migrant Employment in Low-Skilled Work, September 2013.

2. Migration Watch UK, Briefing Paper 4.15, ‘Incentives for Polish Migration’, April 2012, URL: http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/4.15

3. Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007 and transitional controls on their employment in the UK are lifted on 1 January 2014.

4. Migration Watch UK, Briefing Paper 4.20, ‘Incentives for Romanian and Bulgarian Migration to the UK’, February 2013, URL: http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/4.20

5. David Goodhart, The British Dream, Successes and Failures of Post War Immigration, 2013.

6. MAC, Analysis of the Impacts of Migration, January 2012.

7. Fraser Nelson in Spectator, ‘Brits are not idle – they’re just taxed to death’, December 2013, URL: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/.../brits-are-not-lazy-ms-campeanu-theyre-just-taxed-to-death/

8. NIESR, ‘Labour mobility within in EU – The impact of enlargement and the functioning of the transitional arrangements’, April 2011, URL: http://www.niesr.ac.uk/pdf/270411_143310.pdf

9. IPPR, From Learning to Earning: Understanding the School to Work Transition in London, August 2012, URL: http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2012/08/learning-to-earning_Aug2012_9516.pdf

10. Office for National Statistics, Births in England and Wales by Parents’ Country of Birth, 2012, URL: http://www.ons.gov.uk/.../parents--country-of-birth--england-and-wales/2012/rtd-parents-country-of-birth-tables.xls

 

 

[wakeboard1980]

Weeeeell, it beats a golden shower hands down.

 

As I said, I am indebted to you. Without a doubt you are knowledgeable and quite innovative. I await your next brilliant idea with eager anticipation (loofah sales have gone through the roof btw; the Stock Market is reeling). Green groups are having crisis meetings because they no longer need to chain themselves to trees, their credibility is destroyed. All they needed was loofahs, and any water source would suffice.

 

Blue: that's called 'Claytons' btw.

Brown: 'lucky'? Not even to have a 'Claytons shower? You clearly have a olfactory problem. I see now why this matter so concerns you.

It's called memory by association..

 

 

 

How sad that you seem not to know why these families 'sold these houses in the first place'. You surely are able to grasp that such folks do not all deliberately deny their offspring the family home?

That there might be other compelling factors for selling?

 

It isn't difficult to work out.

 

 

 

Blue: It's easily done isn't it?

Brown: Me too.

 

So none of it has to do with families that owned property and land selling it off to make some decent money? No that would never happen would it!

[paulv]

So none of it has to do with families that owned property and land selling it off to make some decent money? No that would never happen would it!

 

If he bought them all at auction via repossessions would that make it any more or less ok?

the obscene number of properties is the issue, not making money. Try to understand that.

He's amassing on average of two new properties a year - yet rents make up 50% more of the average weekly costs in rural communities.

He literally is bleeding the community he represents dry

[paulv]

Some argue the opposite.

 

Business leaders are a different proposition to shadowy and unrepresentative single issue groups such as migration watch.

[Freckleface]

If he bought them all at auction via repossessions would that make it any more or less ok?

the obscene number of properties is the issue, not making money. Try to understand that.

He's amassing on average of two new properties a year - yet rents make up 50% more of the average weekly costs in rural communities.

He literally is bleeding the community he represents dry

 

 

Is the thrust of your objection the fact that it is an MP who owns the property or do you object to property investors in general?

[simmo]

Business leaders are a different proposition to shadowy and unrepresentative single issue groups such as migration watch.

In what way?

[paulv]

Is the thrust of your objection the fact that it is an MP who owns the property or do you object to property investors in general?

 

Neither.

[paulv]

In what way?

 

Business runs the world, single issue 'think tanks' don't.

[simmo]

Business runs the world, single issue 'think tanks' don't.

So does that make one right and the other wrong?

 

Migration Watch UK is an independent think tank. It is chaired by Sir Andrew Green, a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. The Vice Chairman is Mr Alp Mehmet, MVO, a former Ambassador to Iceland. We have a distinguished Advisory Council from diverse professions as business, academia, medicine, law, politics and journalism.

[paulv]

So does that make one right and the other wrong?

 

No.

[The Fisheys]

Quite simply the History of Mankind is based on immigration / emigration. Whether it was the Exodus from Israel, The Pilgrim Fathers, us lot in Australia, it is basic human nature to want a better life for yourself, and your family.

There can be no doubt that after decades of communist oppression, Eastern Europeans can look forward to a better future in the UK.

I can understand the arguments, the Tories oppose immigration because they feel "they" will vote Labour, Labour support it because they feel "they" will vote Labour. In fact neither is particularly true. The racist fringe oppose it and sell this to their putative supporters on the basis that the reason you haven't got a good job, car, house, girlfriend, boyfriend, hospital, school is because of "them," and sadly, there are many dumb enough to fall for this.

There seems to be some suggestion that "they" only want our benefits. Probably not true, but just cut them anyway, then there can be no doubt.

Opposing immigration flies in the face of human nature, and policies that do so always fail in the end.

So suck it up and welcome them, and if you don't like it, try Australia.

There is loads of room, and once they work out that they can use solar power to desalinate the oceans surrounding the country, and pump potable water to the entire country the population will soar.

[wakeboard1980]

If he bought them all at auction via repossessions would that make it any more or less ok?

the obscene number of properties is the issue, not making money. Try to understand that.

He's amassing on average of two new properties a year - yet rents make up 50% more of the average weekly costs in rural communities.

He literally is bleeding the community he represents dry

 

I know a few people that bought at auctions, they aren't politicians, are they as bad in your book as this man? And has he bought them all at auction as repossessions?

and again I don't see what this has to do with the OP. how is the obscene number of properties the issue then you say it's not about he money? Which one is it? What I'm trying o understand is the way you don't like people making money. Would it be different if he owned houses spread out around the country?

[wakeboard1980]

Quite simply the History of Mankind is based on immigration / emigration. Whether it was the Exodus from Israel, The Pilgrim Fathers, us lot in Australia, it is basic human nature to want a better life for yourself, and your family.

There can be no doubt that after decades of communist oppression, Eastern Europeans can look forward to a better future in the UK.

I can understand the arguments, the Tories oppose immigration because they feel "they" will vote Labour, Labour support it because they feel "they" will vote Labour. In fact neither is particularly true. The racist fringe oppose it and sell this to their putative supporters on the basis that the reason you haven't got a good job, car, house, girlfriend, boyfriend, hospital, school is because of "them," and sadly, there are many dumb enough to fall for this.

There seems to be some suggestion that "they" only want our benefits. Probably not true, but just cut them anyway, then there can be no doubt.

Opposing immigration flies in the face of human nature, and policies that do so always fail in the end.

So suck it up and welcome them, and if you don't like it, try Australia.

There is loads of room, and once they work out that they can use solar power to desalinate the oceans surrounding the country, and pump potable water to the entire country the population will soar.

 

I don't thinking so much opposing immigration but rather wanting control of immigration. You say if you don't like it try Australia, well Australia can control their immigration whereas the UK to an extent can't, so 2 different ways of doing things so yes Aus may be more suitable for people that don't want the flood gates opened

[pablo]

Quite simply the History of Mankind is based on immigration / emigration. Whether it was the Exodus from Israel, The Pilgrim Fathers, us lot in Australia, it is basic human nature to want a better life for yourself, and your family.

There can be no doubt that after decades of communist oppression, Eastern Europeans can look forward to a better future in the UK.

I can understand the arguments, the Tories oppose immigration because they feel "they" will vote Labour, Labour support it because they feel "they" will vote Labour. In fact neither is particularly true. The racist fringe oppose it and sell this to their putative supporters on the basis that the reason you haven't got a good job, car, house, girlfriend, boyfriend, hospital, school is because of "them," and sadly, there are many dumb enough to fall for this.

There seems to be some suggestion that "they" only want our benefits. Probably not true, but just cut them anyway, then there can be no doubt.

Opposing immigration flies in the face of human nature, and policies that do so always fail in the end.

So suck it up and welcome them, and if you don't like it, try Australia.

There is loads of room, and once they work out that they can use solar power to desalinate the oceans surrounding the country, and pump potable water to the entire country the population will soar.

 

Offtopic but they have found vast reserves of fresh water under the sea bed off aus,africa and america,future drilling maybe,was going to put a thread on about it the other day,but i put one on about the universe being a hologram the other day,but due to lack of interest in this world changing,startling news,im more inclined to put one on about coronation street or something similar,carry on....

[paulv]

I know a few people that bought at auctions, they aren't politicians, are they as bad in your book as this man? And has he bought them all at auction as repossessions?

and again I don't see what this has to do with the OP. how is the obscene number of properties the issue then you say it's not about he money? Which one is it? What I'm trying o understand is the way you don't like people making money. Would it be different if he owned houses spread out around the country?

 

You're doing it again- making assumptions about me that I have already tried to help you reframe.

This man has been the source of the article about our apparently overcrowded country, and how immigration is going to make this worse. Yet he is laying waste to his own community, ensuring that our urban areas become more overcrowded, that schools and hospitals have to cater for more and more, and that support networks are fractured - all of which mean more discord, more costs for the taxpayer.

 

He's a hypocrite plain and simple. Another case of 'do as I say, not as as do'.

[pablo]

I know a few people that bought at auctions, they aren't politicians, are they as bad in your book as this man? And has he bought them all at auction as repossessions?

and again I don't see what this has to do with the OP. how is the obscene number of properties the issue then you say it's not about he money? Which one is it? What I'm trying o understand is the way you don't like people making money. Would it be different if he owned houses spread out around the country?

 

 

Whenever any one with left leaning politics posts about issues that concern them,the knee jerk reaction is they are jealous basically,this isnt always the case,sometimes they are genuinely concerned,nothing to do with £ or jealousy,yet the right thinking members on here cant even begin to grasp they might actually be "concerned",there "must" be another reason?!i know,its gotta be jealousy!,basically it just tells you more about the person and the way they think tbh

 

Re the 24 house pollie,take it to the extreme for a second,lets say 4 land owners owned all the non social housing in the country,just 4 of them,this wouldnt be healthy would it?

Inevitably they would force rents up,get together,form a cartel,and dictate availability,come down the scale and somebody with 24 houses is a smaller version of the scenario ive just mentioned,its not healthy

[wakeboard1980]

Whenever any one with left leaning politics posts about issues that concern them,the knee jerk reaction is they are jealous basically,this isnt always the case,sometimes they are genuinely concerned,nothing to do with £ or jealousy,yet the right thinking members on here cant even begin to grasp they might actually be "concerned",there "must" be another reason?!i know,its gotta be jealousy!,basically it just tells you more about the person and the way they think tbh

 

Re the 24 house pollie,take it to the extreme for a second,lets say 4 land owners owned all the non social housing in the country,just 4 of them,this wouldnt be healthy would it?

Inevitably they would force rents up,get together,form a cartel,and dictate availability,come down the scale and somebody with 24 houses is a smaller version of the scenario ive just mentioned,its not healthy

 

Ive just done a bit of googling and I've read plenty about this guy, gosh even some of his tenants are on record saying heis a nice bloke. He even has someone receiving benefits living in his house. But the articles I could find were from 2009 so things may be different now. What if he inherited these properties?

 

Im not saying Paulv is jealous, what I am saying is that his posts always seem to go against people that make money and are well off. Why is it that when someone from the right questions someone's left views they have no compassion, no concerns about the poor etc etc. I can tell you in this case you are wrong, I just don't see the problem with this guy owning 24 houses, and yes I will say something when certain members always seem to post about the 'rich' people when it's got noting to do with the thread, sure we can all twist articles referenced to somehow turn the thread around.

[wakeboard1980]

You're doing it again- making assumptions about me that I have already tried to help you reframe.

This man has been the source of the article about our apparently overcrowded country, and how immigration is going to make this worse. Yet he is laying waste to his own community, ensuring that our urban areas become more overcrowded, that schools and hospitals have to cater for more and more, and that support networks are fractured - all of which mean more discord, more costs for the taxpayer.

 

He's a hypocrite plain and simple. Another case of 'do as I say, not as as do'.

 

How is he ensuring that our urban areas become overcrowded?

[paulv]

How is he ensuring that our urban areas become overcrowded?

 

As I've already stated rental costs in comparison to income in rural areas are as much as 50% higher than equivalent properties in urban areas as wages are generally lower. So people can no longer afford to live in rural areas and have to seek work and life in urban areas.

[pablo]

Ive just done a bit of googling and I've read plenty about this guy, gosh even some of his tenants are on record saying heis a nice bloke. He even has someone receiving benefits living in his house. But the articles I could find were from 2009 so things may be different now. What if he inherited these properties?

 

Im not saying Paulv is jealous, what I am saying is that his posts always seem to go against people that make money and are well off. Why is it that when someone from the right questions someone's left views they have no compassion, no concerns about the poor etc etc. I can tell you in this case you are wrong, I just don't see the problem with this guy owning 24 houses, and yes I will say something when certain members always seem to post about the 'rich' people when it's got noting to do with the thread, sure we can all twist articles referenced to somehow turn the thread around.

 

"Jealous/go against people making money",its the same thing Wakey,im not saying "everyone" who is right thinking has no compassion,just that it sometimes seems they cant grasp that people are genuinely concerned,that the stock reply is they "must" be jealous,im not digging you out,but thats what you've just said more or less,and its always the same with the right on here.

 

I gave the reasons its not healthy for a small number of people to own large property portfolio's,dont you think they would manipulate the market?i do fwiw,but each to their own,right,im off,got some running round to do before the match,tara

[wakeboard1980]

As I've already stated rental costs in comparison to income in rural areas are as much as 50% higher than equivalent properties in urban areas as wages are generally lower. So people can no longer afford to live in rural areas and have to seek work and life in urban areas.

I would agree with your post if his houses were empty, but the articles I read don't seem to say that. They even quoted a couple of his tenants.

[paulv]

I would agree with your post if his houses were empty, but the articles I read don't seem to say that. They even quoted a couple of his tenants.

 

If someone controlled the roof over my head I too would be nice about them in print.