Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 24gray24

  1. 1 minute ago, IMHAL said:

    I'm not sure the real figures will give you much of a different answer. The number of immigrants will not affect the over fiscal impact in terms of their net contribution or otherwise on a per capita of immigrant. 

    Even if you have 'the real figures' you will still have to make assumptions and run a model regarding how to measure their impact because you need to look at the lifetime of their contributions/costs, if their kids ate included or not (British born ones), if they marry an English partner then how their kids are assessed etc etc etc.

    I suspect that by limiting the scope to the current contributions/costs they will appear more valuable than if their lifetime contribution/costs where considered. Which would make sense as they will in their older age be more biased towards being net consumers of services.


    You don't need a model. You need real published figures. 

    There's a strong perception among brexit voters that there is a swarm of immigrants living off benefits of one sort or another. 

    The fact the government doesn't publish real figures leads to the conclusion they're covering it up. 

  2. 1 hour ago, IMHAL said:


    Lots of research on the fiscal impact of eea and none eea migrants.

    Research from various agencies consistently say that eea migrants are more benefitial than none. There is some differences in how much they contribute depending on assumptions used. The overall fiscal impact is actually quite small in relation to gdp plus or minus 1 % of gdp depending on assumptions used.

    The gist of this thread is the very definition of barking up the wrong tree....although it does serve the purpose of trying to find convenient scape goats for those so inclined.


    I'm not interested in models. 

    I want the real figures of immigrants claiming benefits and paying taxes.  

    Are they available or not?

    Given the government thought there were 3m eu citizens  in uk and 6m have already applied for permanent leave to remain, I'd say the government had no idea at all. 

  3. 8 hours ago, dugsbody said:

    I don't support Labour, never have and will never in our current corrupt voting system. But the Tories are way worse. I recognise a fraud when I see one. People tell themselves lies about the Labour party in order to soothe their conscience. 

    So which socialist party are you a card carrying member of?

    You keep insisting that labour are credible on economics: Its such a laughable story, you must be a paid up pro. 

  4. 1 hour ago, erat_forte said:

    This connects to Bruce Banner's argument that "these are not tories". My proposition is that Tory principles are flexible in pursuit of the fundamental bottom line which is to acquire and retain power.

    All the things you mention above are tools to retain or get power.

    Your phrase is a bit empty because it doesn't tell you how. 

    Force and fraud (another old phrase) is  more illuminating. 

  5. 1 minute ago, tep1 said:

    I prefer 2 cheeks of the same ****. FPTP promotes only a 2 horse race and any party outside of this has marginal influence in this current system. Electoral reform to PR would empower voters to select other parties at the ballot box and would have a greater consequence on government policies. 

    UK needs sea change in human welfare policy and more conservative on fiscal policy.

    They are not going to change first past the post. 


  6. 1 hour ago, kzb said:

    What percentage of that age group was a Sloane Ranger?  Or a Yuppie ?

    Would it be more or less than the 3.5 million on the dole?

    Far more. Vast numbers of teenagers were doing her best to follow the fashion. (And wanting to marry a prince). And people who had kept their jobs very quickly forgot those who had lost theirs; they aspired to being yuppies. It was the rise of white van man. 

    Hippies were out. Leftists were bickering among themselves . Punks just hated all government, all of society, everything. 

    You seem to insist 3.5 million was an electoral disaster. It wasn't.   It was washed away by pride in being British, in an economy that was picking up, and by the wholesale dismantling of socialism. 

    And the dole was something like half of average wage. Far more generous. 

    You're going to see something like it with 5m unemployed soon. 

  7. 23 minutes ago, erat_forte said:

    The purpose of the Conservative party is power, that's all.

    (can't remember who said it, someone high up in the party in a rare moment of honesty)

    Persuading people to vote for them gives them power

    So they use their power to convince people to vote for them.

    Very simple feedback loop. Nothing complicated. No real way to break it because they are (a) in power, and (b) single-mindedly focussed on acquiring and maintaining power.

     The Conservatives do have principles beyond gaining power: Keeping up military spending. Law and order. The class system. 

    If they want to be actually popular, they add lowering taxes, paying off the national debt and less bureaucracy. 

    Their achilles heel is pocketing more and more taxpayers money.  

    Their greatest strength is Labour's economic incompetence. 

  8. On 15/04/2021 at 13:48, zugzwang said:

    By common consent UK infrastructure is in a state of acute disrepair. The country is experiencing its most extreme housing shortage since the end of WWII, and there are >5 million gig workers in the UK suffering the indignity of casualised and insecure employment. There's a conga line of public works projects before govt waiting to be greenlit. The suggestion that public money can't or shouldn't be used to transform the economy and reverse years of needless austerity is a counsel of despair.

    First World public services or a rolling bailout and profiteering opportunity for the banksters?

    There is a choice.


    More government spending !

  9. 11 minutes ago, kzb said:

    Which age demographic voted Thatcher?

    Are you seriously telling us the hippies and the punks voted Tory?  

    The Conservatives voted thatcher and the socialists voted for more winters of discontent. 

    Voting en bloc solely for the benefit of your own age group wasn't invented then. 

    Punk was 1977 bye the way. Whatever they were angry about was under the socialist government. 

  10. 21 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:

    The Tories have been in power much longer than Labour ever have over the past 100 years.

    The Tory party is a disgusting stain on the UK and has been for long time with David Cameron's 2016 EU ref just the latest in a long line of party before country idiosy.

    UK serfs keep on voting for them because they fall for the b0ll0x about how we can all be successful capitalists by borrowing money to 'buy' a house and drive an diesel car.

    At the end of the day, the UK pubic are to blame for where we are, as the stupid idiots keep on voting in total and utter scum.

    Given a choice, people prefer to vote for a thief (who promises to steal from someone else and give it to them). 

    Hardly surprising the thief then steals from them. 

  11. 1 minute ago, kzb said:

    Hardly any 15-33 year olds voted for Thatcher.  

    Maybe you could take a lesson from the strikes.  All the riots I see are about climate change and women objecting to sexual attention.  I must've missed the riots about house prices.

    Sorry, I think you've got your facts wrong. 

    Thatcher was a rejection of socialism. 

    Young, old, everyone voted for or against the socialist government of the day. Thatcher won. 

  12. 1 minute ago, kzb said:

    I've just told you boomers were too young to vote Thatcher in.  If you want to see archetypal boomers in their better days, see The Young Ones.

    They were 15 to 33 years old in 1979, and a huge bulge in numbers coming through demographically.  

    Thatcher spoke for half of them. The half creaming it in down south.

    The other half, who hated her, were the socialist soon to be unemployed up north. (Who'd bankrupted whole industries by going on strike all the time)

    But even they profited with council home sales, at the expense of all future generations. 

    Me, me, me. 



  13. Just now, kzb said:

    Boomers were 16 to 34 years old in 1980 and 26 to 44 years old in 1990.

    The vast majority were not in senior roles at that age.  The decisions were taken by a tiny minority of mostly older people, as they always are.

    Boomers were profiting from it all. 

    Getting council houses cheap, getting shares in privatised industries, all of it. 


     "there is no such thing as society". 

    Roll on to 2009 and you get the millionaire boomers all getting a triple lock and collecting their winter fuel allowance.  And the poorer ones squandering their assets so the government will pay for their care home fees. 

  14. 27 minutes ago, kzb said:

    No-one voted to export jobs to China.  Show me the election manifestos that promise this.  Show me the party conference videos where the speeches promise to export the workers' jobs.

    It's complete BS and you know it.

    Ps. The government didn't export the factories, it just stopped subsidising them and they went bust. 

    Then boomers sold the useful bits abroad. 

    Boomers voted for this because taxes were too high, subsidising lazy union men who went on strike all the time. 

    And they kept voting for it throughout the 1980's. 

  15. 2 minutes ago, kzb said:

    No-one voted to export jobs to China.  Show me the election manifestos that promise this.  Show me the party conference videos where the speeches promise to export the workers' jobs.

    It's complete BS and you know it.

    You can't actually believe thatcher got voted in. 

    And voted in again. And again. 


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.