UK Politics Thread X: Immigration, Housing, Strikes oh my

[Saor Alba]

Such as.

Plus wasn't there a whole issue with him having a go at a teacher because she was Hindi? I don't remember much about that one. Would have to look it up.

Okay, so you and that guy who was arrested thinks Yousaf is bigoted but I still don't see why either of you have that opinion. Well, aside from this possible attack on a teacher for being "Hindi".

The person who was arrested sent the email because they watched a video in which Yousaf went on a rant about how there are too many senior positions in Scottish public life held by white people. Scotland was 98% white just 20 years ago, and was 96% white in 2011, so it makes sense that white people hold all of the positions he complained about. I do not think that his speech or his motivations behind the speech were racist, but I do think that it is reasonable to interpret it as racist and it was certainly a bad idea to give the speech.

[Ostroeuropa]

"Immigrants are a net contribution to the treasury."

650,000 -> £4.7bn

A study by Oxford Economics (2018), commissioned by the Migration Advisory Committee, estimated the net fiscal contribution of EEA migrants in the financial year (FY) 2016/17 at £4.7bn, compared to a net cost of £9bn for non-EEA migrants.

Oh it was just the EEA ones... welll... erm... that's still good, right? Were only loing 4.5 billion.

"We don't have enough houses because the government isn't building any."

Hmmm.

"About 35,000 homes are planned by 2026, paid for by £4bn of government funding - an average of £114,000 per house."

Hmmmmmm...

37 billion dollars for 300,000 houses.

32 billion dollar loss (Even ignoring the unproductive type of immigrants).

Oops. Pro-Immigrant advocates cannot into math it would seem.

"immigrants are an enormous net drain to the treasury, unless we allow a housing crisis.".

Let's think about this from various perspectives. Instead of a housing crisis, we could simply lower immigration to the thousands and, oh I don't know, cut sales tax by 10% for the same net loss in revenue.

A quick look at the estimates suggest this would be better for the economy than immigrants are.

Or, we could go for an extra 40% added to the entire education budget. (Which at the moment is in the, "Each pound spent generates more than a pound of economic growth" range).

[Hirota]

"Immigrants are a net contribution to the treasury."

650,000 -> £4.7bn

A study by Oxford Economics (2018), commissioned by the Migration Advisory Committee, estimated the net fiscal contribution of EEA migrants in the financial year (FY) 2016/17 at £4.7bn, compared to a net cost of £9bn for non-EEA migrants.

Oh it was just the EEA ones... welll... erm... that's still good, right? Were only loing 4.5 billion.

"We don't have enough houses because the government isn't building any."

Hmmm.

"About 35,000 homes are planned by 2026, paid for by £4bn of government funding - an average of £114,000 per house."

Hmmmmmm...

37 billion dollars for 300,000 houses.

32 billion dollar loss (Even ignoring the unproductive type of immigrants).

Oops. Pro-Immigrant advocates cannot into math it would seem.

"immigrants are an enormous net drain to the treasury, unless we allow a housing crisis.".

Let's think about this from various perspectives. Instead of a housing crisis, we could simply lower immigration to the thousands and, oh I don't know, cut sales tax by 10% for the same net loss in revenue.

A quick look at the estimates suggest this would be better for the economy than immigrants are.

Or, we could go for an extra 40% added to the entire education budget. (Which at the moment is in the, "Each pound spent generates more than a pound of economic growth" range).

I believe Robert Jenrick was making a similar point when he pointed out the NIMBYism of Lib Dem MP Layla Moran when she got her proverbials in a twist whilst campaigning so fiercely against housing developments in Oxfordshire.

It's possible that the study included the cost of housing in their estimates, but from what I can tell reading it, they have not. And maybe there is a middle ground to be charted that doesn't mean picking one or the other, but until MP's such as her points it out and how to do it, I'd personally rather not have the housing crisis than open doors.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

If you dropped immigration to the thousands the country would fucking implode.

[Hirota]

Okay, so you and that guy who was arrested thinks Yousaf is bigoted but I still don't see why either of you have that opinion. Well, aside from this possible attack on a teacher for being "Hindi".

The person who was arrested sent the email because they watched a video in which Yousaf went on a rant about how there are too many senior positions in Scottish public life held by white people. Scotland was 98% white just 20 years ago, and was 96% white in 2011, so it makes sense that white people hold all of the positions he complained about. I do not think that his speech or his motivations behind the speech were racist, but I do think that it is reasonable to interpret it as racist and it was certainly a bad idea to give the speech.

I'm curious if stating the belief that someone "isn't a true trans woman" would satisfy Vassenor's definition of bigotry.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

The person who was arrested sent the email because they watched a video in which Yousaf went on a rant about how there are too many senior positions in Scottish public life held by white people. Scotland was 98% white just 20 years ago, and was 96% white in 2011, so it makes sense that white people hold all of the positions he complained about. I do not think that his speech or his motivations behind the speech were racist, but I do think that it is reasonable to interpret it as racist and it was certainly a bad idea to give the speech.

I'm curious if stating the belief that someone "isn't a true trans woman" would satisfy Vassenor's definition of bigotry.

Well he wouldn't be alone in saying that, given that Nicola Sturgeon, Douglass Ross and one of "Isla Bryson"'s victims all believe the same.

[Fartsniffage]

The Kings sheep have been stolen.

Lambs on the lam.

They're still on the hoof.

[Hirota]

I'm curious if stating the belief that someone "isn't a true trans woman" would satisfy Vassenor's definition of bigotry.

Well he wouldn't be alone in saying that, given that Nicola Sturgeon, Douglass Ross and one of "Isla Bryson"'s victims all believe the same.

Its an interesting quandry. Are these people "bigots" or are trans women women just most of the time?

I personally dont think it's unreasonable to assume a small number of any demographic have the capacity to be decitful and not have that reflect the whole, and I don't think that holding that belief is automatically bigotry. But I'm not the one who was asking how he was a bigot.

[Vassenor]

Another day, another attempt to abuse NO U gotchaposting as a thought terminating cliche.

So answer me this: why should I be supporting Forbes?

[Ostroeuropa]

If you dropped immigration to the thousands the country would fucking implode.

So what's your solution to the above?

[Hirota]

Another day, another attempt to abuse NO U gotchaposting

If you read the post, you would see there is no "gotcha" at all. I even told you a very sensible answer that the vast majority of people would not take issue with at all. The fact you appear to have is predictable, and far more telling than any other answer you could have made.

as a thought terminating cliche.

Do you actually know what a thought terminating cliche is?

For that matter, the only person who likes to engage in gotchaposting is the poster unwilling to answer the question and then put one out of their own. Hypocrisy, thy name is Vassenor.

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised. What is the difference between "ACAB" as you have previously posted, and saying something equally as "all x are y" fallacious as "all trans people are pedos"? Both are quite clearly wrong, both making sweeping assertions on a whole demographic based on the actions of a small minority. You are like those right-wingers you despise so much, unwilling to be anything but a tribalist.

So answer me this: why should I be supporting Forbes?

See, here is a difference between you and I, I am capable of reading your posts, and I am capable of dealing with your incredibly stupid question with an obvious answer: you don't.

Even if you lived in either Forbes' or Yousaf's constituencies - which you don't - even if you were a member of the SNP - which you are not, or even if you lived in Scotland at all - which you don't. You don't have to vote for any of them in a functional democracy where the choice not to vote is a choice in and of itself.

But even if you did, and even if you want to measure it outside the metrics of electoral support, and even if you disagreed with Yousaf over this single issue - that you personally believe that Isla Bryson is a woman whilst quite clearly he (and his predecessor) believe otherwise - why would that preclude you "supporting" him if you agreed with him on every other policy? If you think that you have to agree with someone on everything in order to "support" them, then you don't support anyone.

What a dumb, idiotic scenario Vass. Thats not how rational human beings operate.

[Fartsniffage]

If you dropped immigration to the thousands the country would fucking implode.

So what's your solution to the above?

Put all the immigrants in Wales.

[Dumb Ideologies]

So what's your solution to the above?

Put all the immigrants in Wales.

My vote is we train killer whales to carefully swallow the boats and safely transport them to a highly secret remote African island.

[El Lazaro]

If you dropped immigration to the thousands the country would fucking implode.

So what's your solution to the above?

To spending going towards the economy and living standards? Raise taxes on the wealthy and do more audits, I guess? Spending money isn’t a bad thing when that money is being used productively. If randomly axing major government programs is a goal in itself, then why not do away with the police, abolish the courts, and get rid of prisons? It would save even more money this year alone.

[Fartsniffage]

Put all the immigrants in Wales.

My vote is we train killer whales to carefully swallow the boats and safely transport them to a highly secret remote African island.

Madagascar!

[Hirota]

If you dropped immigration to the thousands the country would fucking implode.

So what's your solution to the above?

There was the suggestion that a one-off tax on the wealthy would raise 260 billion over 5 years: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55236851

Now, that was to shore up the damage done by covid, but that might give is a little bit more pocket money to get some houses built

Doesn't help when you have individuals saying we want more people, but then complaining they don't want more houses near them mind.

[Forsher]

Another day, another attempt to abuse NO U gotchaposting as a thought terminating cliche.

So answer me this: why should I be supporting Forbes?

Is anyone suggesting you should?

The stakes of this conversation were either "are there any examples of Yousaf playing the Uno reverse card whenever he's accused of being a bigot" or "are there examples of Yousaf getting away with being a bigot". I don't actually think the first one's been proven. Frankly, I disagree that writing this:

"Watched the latest Rebel News video on YouTube, you are the main subject.

"Only because you are a piece of racist scum.

"We don't need people like you in Scotland stirring up racism in Scotland, you racist piece of s***.

"I will share the Rebel News video to everyone to show what a horrible b****** you really are.

"Signed, John, Glasgow."

should be a crime. It might be defamatory and it is clearly something unpleasant to read [even if the newspaper didn't add the asterisks, which I doubt], but it evidently is a crime and given that, reporting it doesn't amount to Yousaf playing the Uno Reverse card to my mind.

However, we've got three possible stories which show Yousaf being bigoted, one of which is fairly clear cut. So, if all that needed to be proved was that he gets away with being bigoted, it has been achieved.

Maybe Hirota was a little rude to ask if you'd call Yousaf bigoted when you'd barely been participating in the conversation, except to ask if there were examples, but it's not a trap... if you say "yes, I would actually" no-one can spin around and say "Ah-hah! so you admit that Forbes should've been chosen" because the conversation wasn't really about Forbes. All you would have done is admit that you agree that there is evidence that Yousaf's been bigoted. And even if you disagreed that it's bigoted to say a specific transwoman is a fake transwoman, what is the "ah-hah!" that would be sprung on you? Where is the gotcha? On what would you be got?

[Ostroeuropa]

So what's your solution to the above?

To spending going towards the economy and living standards? Raise taxes on the wealthy and do more audits, I guess? Spending money isn’t a bad thing when that money is being used productively. If randomly axing major government programs is a goal in itself, then why not do away with the police, abolish the courts, and get rid of prisons? It would save even more money this year alone.

If you dropped immigration to the thousands the country would fucking implode.

So if we spend more money then in fact, immigrants will not end up as a net gain to the treasury. That is the point.

So then why bother having them?

The only reason immigrants are touted as a net gain is because they functionally represent austerity by stealth, and it's baffling that a Labour member could continue to support austerity. They represent a real terms cut in public expenditure per capita. If you don't do that, then you end up actually losing more money on them than they provide.

If we have 10,000 people and it costs 10 million to do all the public services and housing for them, and we decide "Let's have 10,100 people instead and spend the same amount", and then turn around and say "Oh look, those 100 people put more into the treasury than they take out!".

That isn't shocking, because they're taking out practically nothing. You have in effect cut public spending by 1% in real terms.

And yet Labour keeps unthinkingly supporting it. If instead they decide "Well we don't like that, so let's raise public spending by 1% at the very least", then suddenly, the entire rationale that immigrants provide something to the treasury evaporates.

You're left with "Well we have a labour shortage.".

And?

Sounds wonderful to me. Sounds like that's a workers market and we can use it to leverage our position and higher wages until the market corrects. But unfortunately it's also stupid, because it relies on the Lump of Labour fallacy. Immigrants are going to worsen the labour shortage, arguably we have one because there are too many immigrants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

(Due to the complexity of the economy, each individual person creates slightly more than one job in the economy through their various needs and wants being fulfilled).

We needed a new Glasgow this year alone to handle the amount. The annual glasgow council budget is 3.1 billion for Glasgow, that's already cutting it thin, but it's perhaps doable if we just magically assume it's possible to provide an empty city for all these people and pay for it to function. When you start thinking "Well, alright. so let's build a new Glasgow." i have to start wondering where you think that money is coming from and whether it might, you know, give us a slight amount of debt for the forseeable future.
Especially if we're going to do this every goddamned year.

It's also, you know. Just the council expenditures.

So if we were to say "Ah yes, immigrants provide more to the treasury than they take out, if we can find somebody to give us a zero-interest loan of several hundred billion pounds, and only allow immigrants access to town council services" then i'd be in total agreement. Otherwise, no, they don't.

It's simply stealth austerity and public sector cuts in real terms that give the impression they do. And when people suggest we need them to fill labour vacancies, that is precisely the same economic illiteracy that causes people to assume immigrants will cause unemployment by taking peoples jobs.

So why are we doing it? If cutting public expenditure by 1% in real terms every year is so absolutely necessary for the country, why don't people who believe that just vote conservative? Hell, they'll cut it by 2% by ballooning immigration and just cutting the budget anyway. Even better, you can have two wonderful austerity projects for the price of one.

I have depicted the debate in meme format, and am thus victorious.

[Philjia]

There are a variety of ways that the government essentially subsidises the interests of private businesses, which one may object to on principle, but will tend to be a feature of any mixed economy.

[Ostroeuropa]

There are a variety of ways that the government essentially subsidises the interests of private businesses, which one may object to on principle, but will tend to be a feature of any mixed economy.

Sure but we had 1 million net migrants this time. That represents a 1.47% cut in real terms to a wide array of public expenditures in a single year.

For the record, the austerity period represented a cut of 23% in public spending per person over the course of 10 years, meaning about 2.3% cuts per year.

Straight up, a significantly large portion of that is due to immigration increasing the number of persons without a commensurate increase in expenditures.

At current immigration figures, we'll have a 14.7% cut in real terms in public expenditure within 10 years.

By not taking a stand on this we're effectively entering a period of permanent austerity. That is not normal government subsidy of business interests. None of this is normal. It is extremely politically radical. There's a meaningful difference between the government bunging an industry a bunch of cash, and an all out ideological assault on the concept of the state itself.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

So the guy who crashed into the Downing Street gate has been charged .... with making indecent images of children.

I didn't see that coming.

[The Huskar Social Union]

So the guy who crashed into the Downing Street gate has been charged .... with making indecent images of children.

I didn't see that coming.

Directed by M. Night Shyamalan.

[Ifreann]

So the guy who crashed into the Downing Street gate has been charged .... with making indecent images of children.

I didn't see that coming.

Must be a libertarian, mad at the government about age of consent laws.

[Dumb Ideologies]

So the guy who crashed into the Downing Street gate has been charged .... with making indecent images of children.

I didn't see that coming.

They should test his DNA to see if there's another long-lost Schofield brother.

[Philjia]

So the guy who crashed into the Downing Street gate has been charged .... with making indecent images of children.

I didn't see that coming.

Nonces being caught out as a result of being subject to an investigation for some other offence must be a reasonably common occurrence. "Right, let's see what evidence of conspiracy we can find by searching your computer... Oh"