GREAT NEWS FOR FANS OF THE BLATANTLY BIAS COMPANY BBC 2 immigration the truth!!

How about a link to where they said this… You know.. sources and stuff.

Otherwise as you were… just keep typing it over and over and see if it comes true.

Northwind – Member

SD-253 – Member

And the two exclamation marks imply I was joking!!!

Do these three exclamation marks imply that you’re joking here as well?

Traditionally, multiple exclamation marks don’t imply anything other than that the person typing is an 8 year old child, semi-illiterate, or a zoomer.
Go for it Northwind why have a rational arguement with someone you disagree with when you can just denegate his views with insults. I don’t use emotcicons because I am to old to use them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!ooof!! the big man hath spoken!!, only kidding 🙂

SD-253 – Member

Go for it Northwind why have a rational arguement with someone you disagree with

I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just your delivery, which is pretty much incomprehensible. I’m not drunk enough to try to have a rational argument with you tbh.

!! @ Northwind
😥 It was better pre edit but it still works

Thanks for the insight re wages although I am not sure how the low pay for home medical staff’ (I know I have been there this year) relates directly to immigration but as an economist I can understand the impact of increased supply of labour

It was obvious an example of the effects of immigrations ie lower wages because of an increase in the supply of Labour. Nor does there have to be an increase of immigrants in that area of employment for there wages to fall. If I have to explain that to you you are not an Economist. Also I suggest you think of the impact of a fall in your wages of say 10% and a fall in the wages of someone on minimum wage of 10%. I suggest you use real wages not nominal and include RPI for someone on minimum wage not your RPI.

!!

Cheers,

!!

In the independence thread you brought up the subject of bbc bias . I looked into it and found that a former bbc executive had found some bias when they took up the post in 2004. Since then steps had been taken to correct this one of those steps being the appointment of Nick Robinson a well respected experienced journalist, whose personal views were /are widely known to be moderately right of centre
Helen Boaden was the executive concerned. Edit

If anything the modern BBC is right wing. But it’s main problem is that it is very much “on message” these days. It doesn’t question the government in power anywhere near enough. The Hutton enquiry killed it’s independence, now it just rolls out press releases ad verbatim as factual news.

But I thought they had the economist Ports on this program (according to the blurb) he’s normally fairly open about the pros and cons (yes the impact on wages) and has written extensively on the subject including;
But, more broadly, immigration is mostly a red herring when it comes to concerns about the UK labour market. Youth unemployment was stubbornly high even before the recession and labour market prospects for young people without skills and qualifications are likely to remain bleak even in recovery. There’s plenty to be worried about. But not one credible economic analysis suggests migration from the EU has had a negative impact on the employment or unemployment rates of native Britons. Indeed, youth unemployment actually rose faster during the recession in areas that experienced lower immigration rates.

Who defines credible?

“Economics is the only field in which two people can receive a Nobel Prize for saying exactly the opposite thing.”

And while the evidence is mixed on wages, with some evidence of downward pressure for the lower paid, the impacts are very small

Surely only those with a big fat wallet could ever say that? A sort of **** you I am alright

compared to more important factors such as technological change and the minimum wage.

THERE ARE HUGE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING NOWHERE NEAR THE MINIMUM WAGE its not as if they brought it in yesterday. Home helps for instance.

Claiming that keeping out Romanians and Bulgarians (or other immigrants) would do anything significant to improve the life chances of young Brits isn’t just wrong, it’s delusional and a distraction from policies that might make a real difference.

An obvious example would be on house prices. Which I think may have an effect on the economic well being of individuals including those who are renting?

policies that might make a real difference

What are these policies that will make a real diferance?

What about wider economic impacts? Some have argued that immigration has little impact on per capita GDP. But this ignores much of the recent economic research on this topic, which suggests that immigrants can boost innovation and raise productivity; and that, perhaps as a consequence, countries more open to immigration, like countries more open to trade, seem to have higher productivity growth.

Does higher productivity growth lead to higher real wages? Actually it should. It did during the Agricultural, Industrial, Transport and the beginning of the Computer Revolution. But why should increased immigration do that? After all why increase capital spending when labour is so cheap? Only when Labour is expensive do business increase Capital spending. Okay I will use once only 🙂

Money itself is not the only thing that gives a person a good quality of life..working 8 hours a day leaving time to see your children? Living in an uncrowded environment?
Okay I am Neo Malthusian so **** the lot of you 😀
That was the last one

The BBC is always pro establishment /pro Britain [ which you could see as conservative with a small C but not really that political IMHO] but it does a terrific job of walking the tightrope of impartiality and holding the government to account
Hutton is in an interesting example of just how cosey they were with Nu Labour eh SD. Every govt feels the BBC is against them which shows they are investigating them well and holding them to account as well even if they remain pro western/on message.
Its far superior [ in general]to the alternatives out there – Channel 4 news is very good to be fair.

Junkyard – lazarus
The BBC is always pro establishment /pro Britain [ which you could see as conservative with a small C but not really that political IMHO] but it does a terrific job of walking the tightrope of impartiality and holding the government to account
Hutton is in an interesting example of just how cosey they were with Nu Labour eh SD. Every govt feels the BBC is against them which shows they are investigating them well and holding them to account as well even if they remain pro western/on message.
Its far superior [ in general]to the alternatives out there – Channel 4 news is very good to be fair.

Channel 4 is state owned and considered to be further to left by some than the bigots at the BBC

more left than the bbc?
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefits-street/4od

anyway thank goodness, what with Sky, ITV, the daily mail, murdoch group, telegraph etc the country is constantly bombarded by xenophobic right wing propaganda !!

but it does a terrific job of walking the tightrope of impartiality and holding the government to account

It really doesn’t do a very good job of holding the government to account at all any more. And the big problem is that when it did do a better job it set the standard for the industry, now it’s standards have slipped, it allows the rest to move even closer to the celebrity gutter.

Aye it were better when I were a lad
I think that is a generic change in media in general and reflective of the disinterest in politics – Brant moans about politics whilst admitting he does not vote for example of what has become of news in general.
I dont disagree with your point but i am not sure of it is the BBC directing or reflecting change

when my post is above your you dont need to quote it [ PS if I am giving advice on over quoting you are on a stickywicket !! – its catching on!!]

Thanks for the insight – have you got lots of unsubstantiated claims to make on things? – its not a real question but a rhetorical device dont be fooled into answering.

As for bigots – thats an insult right and not part of rational debate ? [ see above point]

Junkyard – lazarus
Brant moans about politics whilst admitting he does not vote

Does not vote in elections, union votes etc? You should not have a choice of where ever you vote or not only on who you vote for. There should of course be a box at the bottom saying none of the above. Workers often go out on strike when less than 50% have actually bothered to vote. I believe BA have been on strike with less than 30% bothering to turn up to vote. Start with a fine and for constant offenders jail.

Junkyard – lazarus

As for bigots – thats an insult right and not part of rational debate.
I am not calling anyone on here a bigot and being as I have been called a multitude of things including a Nazi thats a bit rich

Nobody called you a Nazi.

FFS.

I can’t believe I have fed the troll again!

winston_dog – Member
Nobody called you a Nazi.

FFS.

I can’t believe I have fed the troll again!

Sorry you implied it, worse in my opinion

What Kimbers said.
Immigration policy will only improve when it is based on facts not on scare storIes. There are some places where a large amount of immigration has happened and in some places local people felt their way of life was threatened.
Most of this is due to economic factors not migrants. Paying wages below the legal minimum wage is entirely down to exploitation by unscrupulous employers. The mainstream parties have failed to take on social problems which existed long before the current immigrants arrived , and allowed ukip to grow unchallenged.

Housing shortages exist because we have not built enough houses for decades.
I think Nick Robinson did a good job of uncovering some facts and hopefully can drag this issue away from the likes of ukip and paul dacre and right wing extremism

Ok troll tuesday has now become wind-up wednesday Id say everyone just walk away from his thread!

gordimhor – Member
What Kimbers said.
Immigration policy will only improve when it is based on facts not on scare storIes.

Come on who decides on what facts to use and for that matter if they are facts or not? You’re being naive if you think there is going to be agreement on this. In the programme they said that only 13% of the population was immigrants. There definition of immigrants was those not born here. Not everyone would accept that? I was actually surprised it was that high. 13% is more than I expected.

Too busy flogging utilitarian bikes or being a foppish wit ?

😉

😆 😆 😆

SD-253 – Come on who decides on what facts to use and for that matter if they are facts or not?

I think… YOU do, if I understand this thread correctly thus far?

pondo – Member

SD-253 – Come on who decides on what facts to use and for that matter if they are facts or not?

I think… YOU do, if I understand this thread correctly thus far?
Thanks but we have my view and the view required by the politicaly correct that is everyone else on this topic. People talk about rational arguements But if you don’t agree that immigration is good then you are not considered rational in the first place. We (me) are not allowed a view.
Don’t agree with mass immigration = racist.
UKIP = racist I expect the latter gets them extra votes.

We (me) are not allowed a view.

You clearly are allowed a view as evidenced by the fact that you keep putting that view forward. People telling you that you’re talking mince is not the same as having your view suppressed.

Sorry sd, been away for a while. Thanks for the refresher on real and nominal wages. Your are correct to point out the difference (thanks) and to point out that many people have seen declines in both money and real wages over the past few years. This is essentially the reason why the Labour Party is choosing to fight the next election on the basis of the “cost-of-living” argument. Sounds as if you are the same side!! Given the actual data on income inequality (see ONS, they are quite credible) however, this is dangerous ground as the facts don’t support the argument, but that’s another can of worms altogether.

But going back to the point about immigration and the economy, The Portas point is that while immigration may have a negative impact for some (it does) it is positive for the economy as a whole. Take growth. Where does it come from – two main factors (1) the number of people in employment and (2) the productivity of labour. In the UK, we have negative trends for both, so not a pretty picture for growth. However, whether deliberately or not, the influx of immigrants had a positive impact on growth (via both factors) and was an important contributor to the UK economic performance. That may sound incredible to some, but it’s true. An economist told me so!!

This is all a bit of a niggle for Niggle Farridge as it doesn’t support his augment! hence the rather amusing repositioning of his argument that it’s not all about money. It’s has a sniff of Brian Rix about it so I hope Farridge doesn’t start dropping his trousers.

If you do want to make a serious point about bias you could have a wee look at Portas’ background and who he has worked for and what he promotes. In this case, the Beeb could have been more neutral by having a different economist on. I doubt they would have won any noble prizes but there are other points. Google David Goodhart since he and Portas are having a bit of a running battle on this whole issue. You will find Goodhart more of any ally!

lemonysam – Member

We (me) are not allowed a view.

You clearly are allowed a view as evidenced by the fact that you keep putting that view forward. People telling you that you’re talking mince is not the same as having your view suppressed.
Can’t agree with you there. Rememmber we are talking about having your views listend to. Nobody is listening to my views there just atacking them as in you’re talking mince. And

winston_dog – Member
You do realise that you are arguing about immigration with someone who seems to have a log in that is also a WW2 Nazi Personnel Carrier

If that is not an attempt at censoring a person views what is?

If that is not an attempt at censoring a person views what is?

Sorry, they should have put “!!” at the end.

Rememmber we are talking about having your views listend to.

So you want us to agree with you, is that it?

You’re being naive if you think there is going to be agreement on this.

Nicest thing anyone has said to me all day 😳
SD-253 you may not have noticed but aside from a small minority there is a broad agreement on this thread.

Rememmber we are talking about having your views listend to. Nobody is listening to my views there just atacking them as in you’re talking mince.

I and several others have listened to your views and responded with a reasonable counter argument.

[/quote]teamhurtmore – Member

I to have to go and do some work followed by cycle to the pub and a solid drinking session. Hopefully no Ash trees attacked by foriegn diseases will fall on me.
By the way I was not giving you a refresher in real and nominal wages why would i do that your a real economist!
You maybe missing my point I don’t care about the better of and if they do better or worse out of immigration. I know to many people in Manchester who would be living in abject poverty if it wasn’t for the extrodinary hours they have to work. What do you think it is like for them to be we told we need more immigrants because the British are so lazy?

Enjoy your ride and the drink.

I get your point and have agreed – as does the slightly left of centre economist – there are some who are negatively affected by immigration. As I said before, they tend to be the low skilled. There is nothing new there. Their prospects are increasingly grim which is why education and training interests me!

Your final points are also largely true although I am not aware of serious people using “lazy” that much – maybe the euphemism less productive!! But the point that I am getting, but may I suggest you are not, is that there is a difference between individual experiences and the impact on the economy as a whole. This is the point that Portas and others make. Ultimately more people benefit from immigration than lose out – a consequentialist conclusion true – but put another way, those who you are correctly concerned about would likely to be in a worse situation now than if there had been no immigration. Strange but true. And as the (in)credible economist noted, there is no correlation between levels of regional immigration and youth unemployment beyond the anecdotal evidence. Indeed the correlation is the reverse. Others can debate any causation here.

gordimhor – Member

I and several others have listened to your views and responded with a reasonable counter argument.
other than teamhurtmore I can’t remmeber any counter arguements just attacks on my views. Okay

winston_dog – Member
You do realise that you are arguing about immigration with someone who seems to have a log in that is also a WW2 Nazi Personnel Carrier

is obviosly a little extreme but generally very little in the way of a counter arguement other than the “real” economist. Bugger it you have stopped me doing the little work I was going today. Cycle to the pub then exclamation mark

Posted 21 minutes ago # teamhurtmore – Member
Enjoy your ride and the drink.

I get your point and have agreed – as does the slightly left of centre economist – there are some who are negatively affected by immigration. As I said before, they tend to be the low skilled. There is nothing new there. Their prospects are increasingly grim which is why education and training interests me!

Your final points are also largely true although I am not aware of serious people using “lazy” that much – maybe the euphemism less productive!! Either your not listening or you don’t want to hear. Managers of firms say it on the telly and in the newspapers constantly Jamie Oliver was on the telly saying it recently. For the people I am talking about thats a “let me lay down so you can stamp on my head feeling”
By the way would you increase your spending on new labour savings equipment if you can get cheap labour? Chinas great leap forward was due to cheap labour. One child per family? that cheap labour is done and dusted? Would you invest in appreticeship when there is no need?

a consequentialist conclusion true – but put another way, those who you are correctly concerned about would likely to be in a worse situation now than if there had been no immigration.

Not a hope of me agreeing with that I don’t know anyone who had to work work 12 hour days to get the equivalent of a minimum wage. Well maybe the forces but thats a life chioce…excalmation mark. DO NOT REPLY FOR 5 MINUTES SO i CAN SWITHCH OF…2 X exclamation marks

I picked my log on cos it was for a mountain bike forum and a play on a comic I like. why did you pick sd-253 a big interest in home made bread? Questioning someone does not amount to censorship.

So why do you think your mum’s health visitors situation is linked to immigration?

why did you pick sd-253 a big interest in home made bread?

Maybe he should change it to sd-255, which comes with a nut dispenser…

Probably not listening or distracted by other views? Actually just got to the point where the kent farmer is lamenting the dropout rate among local employees. Supports the view that even Goodhart makes…

According to the ONS 20 per cent of low skilled jobs in Britain are taken by people born abroad. Moreover, between the end of 1997 and 2011 2.7m more people were employed in Britain, 2.1m of whom were born outside the country. Of course there is no fixed lump of labour, many newcomers fill jobs that are complementary to existing workers and some of those jobs would not have been created at all if the outsiders had not turned up. And, of course Jonathan is right, even with no immigration the hard to employ in almost completely indigenous former industrial areas like Barnsley would remain hard to employ.

Actually the most disturbing thing about the program so far is Nick Robinson’s dress sense.

Thanks but we have my view and the view required by the politicaly correct that is everyone else on this topic. People talk about rational arguements

You keep shooting yourself in the foot with your arguments fella

You lambast the lack of rational debate just after a lampoon…lamentable
It would be brilliant if intentional though so you still have that defence open to you !!

Nobody is listening to my views there just atacking them

If they have not listened to your views they would not know what it was to attack

If that is not an attempt at censoring a person views what is?

how is saying what your log on may be an attempt at censorship? Do you even know what the word means ?

I can’t remmeber any counter arguements just attacks on my views

so attacking it it is not countering it ? Is it agreeing then?