BBC 2 at 2130 tonight it may prove to be very interesting.
This was a very interesting program. Highlighted at the beginning and end with the fruit farmer. If i remember correctly did he say he advertized for 23 postitions 11 turned up 5/6 left leaving him with 4/5 workers of which were from Eastern Europe. And interviewing one worker that stated he was earning over 600 pounds per week... It would appear to me that English workers found the job below them and or to hard a work.
I would think that to earn that sort of money they have to be on piecework the more you pick the more you earn. So my conclusion and opinion the show was very pro immigration and a lot of rhetoric that really does not answer any questions. The other show the night before ( Benefit Street ) is just the tip of the iceberg.
From The Guardian (and for those who missed the programme click on the title of the programme in the article and you should be able to watch it online).
We're just over a week into the new year and already there's a clear new trend in TV. Television is becoming meta television, existing primarily to be self-referential and a bit pleased with itself. First we had Sherlock, which has turned a clever and innovative drama into something arch and unwatchable in the first two episodes of the second series. Now, we have The Truth about Immigration (BBC2), in which the BBC's Nick Robinson informed us that no one, least of all the BBC, has been telling us the truth about immigration, in a programme aired by the BBC. At which point, any sensible viewer would ask: "How do I know you're telling the truth now?"
It's Robinson's view that ever since Enoch Powell made his '"rivers of blood" speech in 1968, British politicians and the media have shied away from talking about immigration for fear of being labelled racist, and all the key decisions have been made in private, without public consent. This is Robinson's big truth about immigration, and it's a truth that incontestably has some truth – if one with not quite as much conspiracy and skulduggery as Robinson liked to suggest. The reason that immigration policy in regard to EU migrant workers changed with little apparent discussion wasn't because the government was trying to get one over an essentially racist British society; it was because the government cocked up the projected figures and there was no real enthusiasm for a public discussion, either in parliament or the media, at the time anyway. EU migration was an issue low on everyone's concerns.
The truth about Robinson's truth is that it doesn't really get us any further than David Cameron wittering on about the need to cap immigration, or Ed Miliband saying how much he understands the ordinary working person's concerns about foreigners. The real truth is that immigration is about politics, not truth, because no one can agree on the facts. While most economists suggest immigration has been beneficial for the UK, there are still those who argue otherwise – and politicians exploit the gap between these two positions to their own ends.
To be fair to Robinson, he did try to point out some of the economic ambiguities of capping immigration – potentially higher wages versus the loss to higher education, the loss of agricultural businesses, inflation and higher taxation. But his big failure was to treat immigration as a self-contained issue. Which it clearly isn't. As long as the economy was growing and everyone was doing quite well, very few people were bothered that eastern Europeans were coming here to work. The only concern about immigration then was a perceived failure of some Muslim communities to be sufficiently British.
What has changed is that the economy has been tanking badly since 2008. The green shoots that George Osborne can spot haven't been experienced by 99% of the population, who have found their jobs and their incomes squeezed. Foreigners – watch out any Romanian or Bulgarian who has entered the country since January 1 – have become the convenient fallguys for a much wider problem. It's far easier for politicians to pick on a scapegoat that will pander to people's insecurities and prejudices, than to address the real problems.
It wasn't immigration that the country needed to be discussing in the 1990s and 2000s so much as why the financial institutions were being given free rein to destroy the economy with so little comeback and why governments have been so reluctant to collect taxes from the largest corporations and the wealthiest individuals. All of which Robinson ignored. As do the politicians. Which is why a genuine debate about immigration is beyond both of them."
So.......is the UKIP immigration policy/argument that Britain should be poorer but purer?
Another article from The Guardian (my emphasis in red).
Nick Robinson doesn't think we discuss immigration enough; a strange claim during a period when, it seems, we talk of little else. The Truth About Immigration is the name of his heavily trailed documentary, airing this evening on BBC2; and by "heavily trailed" I mean that the entire BBC News network has turned into one interminable trailer for it, across all platforms.
It appears to typify current television news theory on fact-finding. That is, if one conflates every opinion on a subject, from the scientific to the irrational, from the well-informed to the fictitious, crams them all into one hours-worth of television, adds and then divides them up, the mean average will reveal some sort of hidden truth. It doesn't work like that of course. What you get is an hour of the white noise of voxpops – some of value, most not. The programme includes the results of the latest British Social Attitudes Survey, which found that 75% of Britons want immigration curbed.
Almost half thought immigration was bad for the economy but, even of the 31% who thought immigration was good for the economy, half wanted it curbed anyway. This attitude was reflected by Nigel Farage during this morning's interview on Radio 4's Today programme. If immigration meant that "we would all be slightly richer, I would say, do you know what, I would rather we were not slightly richer", he explained. It is a purely emotional argument. Why would any electorate be so keen to cut off its own nose, economically, just to spite its face?
As it seems to be the day for chucking one's opinion into the fray, here is mine, as an immigrant of 23 years to these lovely shores. Many British people seem to find foreigners challenging. This a country which runs on rules, etiquette and routine. Foreigners are, de facto, more likely to be ignorant of those rules. Having to explain them is awkward. Awkwardness must be avoided at all costs. Don't get me wrong – you certainly like us individually and as individuals. But as one group to another, you tolerate us grudgingly; you tut a lot and roll your eyes, when we don't know that one stands on the right of the escalator.
This annoyance creates a perception of immigration, and more generally of "otherness" within society, that is hugely inflated compared to the truth. Brits on average think 24% of the population are Muslims when the reality is closer to 5%, that 31% of the population are immigrants when the reality is 13%, and that black and Asian people make up 30% of the population, when in fact it is 11%.
In a sense, then, Nick Robinson is right. We don't discuss immigration – because discussion would imply a factual basis and the exchange of logical arguments. We worry, we whine and we gossip about it. "My hairdresser's cousin's postman, knows a Bulgarian woman who came over just to claim benefits." The waters are further muddied by this process, masquerading as balance, of giving time and a soapbox to every cockamamie statement any self-serving politician cares to make, then labelling the sum of these parts "the truth about immigration". Farage said this morning: "We have 1 million illegal immigrants, maybe 2 million, in Britain." The statement was left unchallenged. One million, maybe two. We don't know a number, but it is very big and very scary and definitely rounded to the nearest million, because they're the scariest numbers of all.
Like the 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians we were warned about, threatening to enter like an eastern European tsunami one minute past midnight on 1 January. That was a scary number. When I pointed out that the tsunami hadn't materialised, hundreds rushed to comment that it was too soon, that they were coming by bus and would definitely be here by Saturday at the latest. Had a more impressive number flown over on the same day, people would be nodding sagely and saying "told you so". Because this inflated perception is fuelled by the dislike of otherness and becomes a hysterical feedback loop, impervious to fact or logic.
I suspect that, as the time for an actual choice approaches, whether in the form of an in-out EU referendum or otherwise, self-interest will take over and people will start seeking fact rather than hyperbole, as they have in the past. The facts are as clear as they could be. Migrants are net contributors, by a long way. Without them the British economy – and by extension pensions, public services, growth, prosperity – would have shrivelled to a significant extent or taxes would have had to rise.
Nigel Farage accepts this very simple equation. He wants Britain to be poorer but purer.
Lynne@ I think you have covered the whole debate two great posts you are to be congratulated
Did you get that from The Golden Dawn website?
For those who may not have heard of Golden Dawn or who may wish to know more
No Lynne it was emailed to me by somebody I know
Tonight (Weds) - BBC2 21.30-22.30 The Hidden World of Britain's Immigrants - programme about illegal immigrants in this country.
Nick Robinson was absolutely right when he stated the last Labour government’s immigration policy, above all else, has had the profoundest effect on this country since the end of the last war. Jack Straw was being deceitful when he claimed ministers were merely misadvised about the true estimation of immigrant numbers from eastern European post 2004. It was Labour’s policy all along to allow mass immigration; a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett blew the gaff on this in 2009.
The charade of seeing Labour politicians on the programme trying to backtrack from their disastrous policies was nauseating. Given the chance I have no doubt they would do it all again.
Lynne@ just watched the program you just couldn't make it up It was shocking I really don't know what to say I really can't believe what I have just watched, how can a man who steals on a daily basis, is a drug addict, is a illegal immigrant is arrested goes to prison and is then set free it's a joke let's hope the programme makes Cameron grow a pair and get tough with these people.
Leatash - some thoughts that occurred to me whilst watching the programme.
1. Stop people wanting to come here illegally.
2. How to deal with them, repatriate them etc, if they do make it here.
There seems to be this belief in some other parts of the world that this country has pavements of gold etc. It doesn't. We, who live here all know it doesn't, but I guess if there is that impression of Britain in other countries such as India and Afghanistan then people from those countries will still wish to come here - legally or otherwise. Perhaps it's a variation on The American Dream. Anyhow what went through my mind (and for all I know it is done already) is that films such as that one showing the reality of life in this country for illegal immigrants should be shown in countries where many of our illegal immigrants originate. I got the impression that those illegal immigrants filmed were ashamed of being failures and didn't want their families back home in India to know of their failure. That did make me ask myself why then they had allowed themselves to be filmed given that the film could as easily be seen in India as it was here.
I also thought along similar lines of the Baltic couple who were claiming Job Seekers allowance as individuals (they got more that way) rather than as a married couple (when they would get less). So they didn't think anyone in authority would act on that info (if they hadn't already done so) once that film got aired? Doh!
Then there is the problem and bureaucracy attendant with destroyed passports and the authorities in the country having to prove the citizenship of 'illegals' who have destroyed their paperwork. In the light of public sector cuts I am not sure how the problem of 'illegals' can be resolved. There is presently a freeze on recruitment for UKBA and as UKBA no longer keep records of who exits the country how can the authorities know who may have overstayed their welcome even if they originally arrived here legally (on a tourist visa for example). Private sector to take over? But only if there is a profit to be made.
As was also pointed out in the film, the illegal immigrants also negatively impact on legal immigrants and those who are descended from legal immigrants.
I still blame the Labour party and Tony Blair for the problems we have now.
For that reason and the fact Labour proved over 13 years they could not run our finance and ended in power 'with no money' ..I for one will not vote Labour again but I have no doubt at all people will,, the new first time voters for example, . So get ready for 'spend spend' and even more immigrants from 2016. Why cant UK be tough like Auss, USA etc ..but oh yes, we are in the EU so we do what we are told to do.
This is scheduled to happen http://thepienews.com/news/uk-to-tighten-permanent-residency-rules-in-2016/ but what else?
On BBC Question time.. .what Labour plan now! >
"Shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna has suggested Labour may be interested in restricting free movement within the European Union for workers who do not have the firm offer of a job."
(from the link Wondering has given).
Addendum: For some reason (?!) the programme Auf Wiedershen Pet suddenly came into my mind so I just looked it up. Here is an extract about it;
"The first series, co-produced by Witzend Productions and Central Television for ITV in 1983, is the story of seven out-of-work construction workers from various parts of Britain who are forced to look for work in West Germany, although it focuses initially on three men from Newcastle upon Tyne making the journey to Germany, with the others being introduced along the way. (The title refers to their farewells to their wives and girlfriends - "Auf Wiedersehen" being German for "Farewell" or "Goodbye", and "Pet" being a North-East English term of endearment).
They find work on a German building site in Düsseldorf but despite promises of hostel accommodation, are forced to live in a small hut that reminds them of a POW camp. The rest of the series is driven by the interactions and growing friendships between the various characters: for instance, Barry, an electrician from the Black Country, is an obsessive bore; Neville, one of the Geordie bricklayers, is an insecure young newlywed; fellow Geordie Oz, another bricklayer, is aggressive and jingoistic; and London joiner Wayne is a womaniser. The third Geordie is Dennis, a bricklayer who, being older, more experienced and generally more mature than the others, becomes the de facto leader of the group. The others are Bristolian bricklayer Bomber and Liverpudlian ex-con plasterer Moxey. Over the course of 13 episodes the "Magnificent Seven" enjoy comic and romantic adventures, until a change in German tax laws forces them to return home."
and then I thought..........."and I wonder how much of the money earnt by these fictional characters would have been sent home to Blighty, to their families, so as to pay for rents/mortgages, food, energy bills and the like? And just how many Brits working abroad, in real life, have done that very same thing both in the past and also right now? And would these Brits, who have worked and who are presently working abroad, be classified as economic migrants?
Many of the issues the U.K. has with the E.U. policy makers is quite simple. The British Government, what ever puppets are sitting in the houses, have never embodied the true spirit of the E.U. They pick and choose what they wish to accept and begrdudginly fight over other parts the E.U. imposes by mandate.
Either we embody the E.U. as a whole or we leave. There is no halfway to gaining all the benefits of the E.U. without total comittment. Something those in power are never willing to do.
an informative read for those who would like some facts
Well I guessed 1.5% for exeter and it was 1.6%
In a couple of my earlier postings I mentioned the Greek organisation Golden Dawn.
This is in today's Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/10/nick-griffin-support-golden-dawn-greece
Slowly they are getting there!
It may be my eyes playing tricks on me, but if you look closely at that graph shown in the link Wondering has posted would I be correct in thinking that it excludes the numbers of British citizens leaving the Uk to go to other EU countries?
From what I understand from watching various programs relating to this subject no government departments have answers to your question Lynne. I find it amazing that nobody knows I wonder if other countries have systems in place or is this problem confined to the EU.
found this on the UKBA website:
There is no immigration embarkation control at UK ports. If asked by the UK Border Agency to find out if a person has returned home, Entry Clearance staff can:
question: if they have left the UK or even the last known address they ain't gonna get that letter are they? Doh!
Try as I might I cannot find any figures relating to UK emigration which, if they aren't any checks and records made, isn't surprising really is it? Which then begs the question of where does the ONS and other bodies get their emigration figures from?
Anyhow, in my fruitless search for recent UK emigration stats I came across this. Have a read - hands up those who can see irony when it stares 'em in the face.
Wow. Looks like we've been invading other countries! If that article is correct it suggests 13m British citizens living outside the country. My hands are raised high Lynne.
Watching Ch4 Benefits Street series 2 ....what an education this!
Can't say I've seen any of it Wondering but I have noted it has produced quite a bit of controversy - name of the programme being one of the bones of contention I believe.
So....as I haven't seen it I've just been looking at various newspaper reviews of the latest programme. Something about Romanians living in the street I understand. Seems they were using a bit of entrepreneurial initiative (something the right applauds and encourages - entrepreneurial initiative) and trying to eek out a living by going on the search for scrap metal. And didn't they get ripped off by a gang master who promised them a certain amount of money for a day's work but then paid them less?
It's worth watching ..you can on the 4od link I posted.
Thank you for the link. I did try to watch it online but it kept getting 'stuck' and as it had already taken me about 30 mins to watch about 7 mins worth of the programme I stopped trying.
However, from what little of the programme I did manage to see I remember very early on the narrator saying that James Turner Street (aka Benefit Street) "is not your average street" and then a bit later on saying that something like 95% of the residents were on benefits of some kind and that many of the homes have someone born overseas in them and that the street is a very mixed community of Irish, Jamaican, English, Polish, Indian and, of late, Romanians.
But - as the narrator said - this "is not your average street"
What i found interesting on last nights programme ( Benefits Street ) that the Roumanians that were living there came here before January 1st. But it appeared to me that their main concern was trying to find work which doesn't seem evedenced by the other people in the street. Although they had been bought here with an expectation of being paid a decent wage only to be shafted by their boss. They were not being paid benefits ( am i right ) As one of them stated they were better of at home and have no money to get back there. Is it possible that these Romanians,Bulgarians and Polish have different work ethic than the rest of benefit scroungers. It has been said before that the benefit system is a lifeline not a way of life as it has become....
From what I can ascertain Bulgarians and Romanians have been able to come to this country since 2007 to work provided; 1) they obtained a work permit; 2) came as self-employed; 3) or as part of the Seasonal Agricultural Workers' Scheme.
11% of Bulgarians and 6% of Romanians have already worked in the UK prior to 1.1.14.
source: page 14
And I'll remind everyone again - University College London recently published a report on the contribution of immigrants to this country since 2000.
In summary: "Migrants coming to the UK since the year 2000 have been less likely to receive benefits or use social housing than people already living in the country, according to a study that argues the new arrivals have made a net contribution of £25bn to public finances.
People from European Economic Area countries have been the most likely to make a positive contribution, paying about 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits over the 10 years from 2001 to 2011, according to the findings from University College London's migration research unit. Other immigrants paid about 2% more than they received."
There's a fuller description on http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts
And today we heard that the Treasury's analysis supports this view into the future, much to the embarrassment of David Comeon + cronies.
NEILH, you forget that the UKIP racists have admitted that they don't mind if their abhorrent immigration policies make the UK poorer, as long as their policies make the UK purer.
On the matter of UKIP racists - I know a very active UKIP supporter in Dawlish. Some time ago this particular individual told me that they objected to the TDC form asking about ethnic origin etc as it included the term Black British. According to this particular UKIP activist they did not accept that there was any such thing as a Black British person. For them, "Black British" was a contradiction in terms.
I wonder how many Olympic medals we won then as per that UKIP supporters belief?
@Lynne that is what is wrong with all the analysis to me you should not be counted as black british but just british. what happens then is that someone decides that tdc does not have enough "black british" and then the bias is towards having more "black british" and then the white british get discriminated against. i have seen it happen in the previous area that i lived in. before anybody accuses me of being a member of ukip or a racist i am not. what i am against is allowing more people into this country so that we become even more overcrowded and suffer more problems with the stress applied to schools, hospitals and doctors. the country could solve a lot of problems relating to the problem of old age if the goverment would allow people to elect for voluntary euthanasia. i have seen many of my relatives kept alive by the medical profession when they have no quality of life and have lost all dignity, that to me is part of what is wrong in this country.
The UCL report so vaunted by the pro-immigration lobby has been pretty much rubbished by Mervyn Stone, Emeritus Professor of Statistics at UCL who described it as “fatally flawed”, and “the study was ‘obviously driven to make the case it claims to have made’. He added: ‘If any honest statistician had made the same painstaking but assumption-based calculations, the last word he/she would have used to describe the estimates is “precise” – unless exhaustion had affected judgment.”
It is also interesting to note that one of the authors of the UCL study was amongst those who advised that only 13,000 eastern Europeans would come to the UK after 2004, when in fact the figure was nearer one million over a decade, and thus has form for getting things very, very wrong.
Well, this is what the Office for Budget Responsibility thinks.