Mr Hunter's UK Commentary Thread

[Silent Hunter]

AKA What utter rubbish the Daily Mail is spinning today, among other things

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=501128&in_page_id=1770

For those of you who don't want to read the thing, I'll summarise in brief. A new study has found that since Labour came to power in 1997, 1.7 million new jobs have been created. The Daily "Hate" Mail has stated that 4 out of 5 of these new jobs have gone to "migrants". 2.1 million more people are now employed in the UK than in 1997, 1.1 million being foreign citizens.

Now, assuming this is accurate, there's one major problem. The definition of "migrants" is too wide.

Britain has always been a country of immigration. The Romans, the Normans... Let's just narrow our frame down to the period after the Second World War. We have (an incomplete list):
* Those from the Caribbean who came over in the late 1950s. Not all would have been non-UK citizens (Jamaica didn't gain independence until 1962), but some of them would have been.
* Ugandan Asians
* Those from the Indian sub-continent in the 1970s.
* Those from the 2004 EU intake.

Those from the 2004 intake haven't had a chance to become UK citizens- many haven't even got permanent leave to remains.

If I (being alive at that time- I wasn't) had left Ghana in 1959, two years after Independence, I'd be a Ghanaian citizen moving to the UK and ergo a migrant. I acquire a UK passport in the mid 1970s. If I got a new job in 1999, I would be counted as "a migrant" despite having lived in the UK for 40 years.

Sir Andrew Green should look at his facts more carefully. How did he get his knighthood anyway?

[afleitch]

First of all, the figures quoted by the Daily Mail are the Treasury's own figures. If you have a problem with them and how they are compiled, your beef should be with the Treasury not the Mail. The Daily Mail is only guilty of spin, and of running the same story six weeks apart not the creation of false figures. If the commission chooses to define migration in such a way, then that is their choice to do so.

Back in October, Alistair Darling was asked for estimates of the number of migrant workers in Britain since 1997.  Angela Eagle, a junior Treasury minister in a written response published a letter from Karen Dunnell head of the ONS. She said the number of foreign-born workers in Britain rose from 1.904m in mid 1997 to 3.269m in the middle of 2007, an increase of 1.365m. Over the same period, there was a rise in working-age employment among UK-born people from 23.638m to 23.948m, a rise of just 310,000.

Even if we take into account newly employed migrant workers the figure is 50%. The figures can be broken down in whatever way possible but foreign workers, no matter how you define them still account for over 50% of all jobs created.

You may remember it took some coaxing back in late October for the Treasury to reveal these figures. The figure that infamous day was pegged at 0.8 million jobs to migrant workers, then to 1.1 million and then to 1.5 million almost doubled in the space of 24 hours. It may be higher still. Last time I argued that the poor levels of communication between government departments and ministers was dangerously unnacceptable;

In the short term it's poor and unacceptable communication between government departments. In the long term it hits the provision of local services; how can local authorities budget for housing, school, social work provision if they are unaware of the exact figures? Up to 40 local authorities have already complained to the government claiming their population has been underestimated (possibly deliberately) and as a result they are finding themselves with a below necessary allocation of finances.

Now the issue here should not be about the 'classification' of migrant workers. When the story broke Mr Brown had, the month previously made his rallying call at the Labour Conference for 'British Jobs for British Workers.' That was of course, illegal under EU employment law, so instead the crackdown appears to be levied upon non-EU workers. Personally I find this personally revolting and contrary to free market economics and the unrestricted movement of labour; there is a difference between the act migration and the end product of migration upon a community - integration or isolationism. It is the product that needs to be adressed.

So the real issue here is not about migrant workers. It's about non-migrant workers. It is about the man or woman, whether British born or not who was in this country on May 1st 1997. It is about the school child who was here on that day too. What has happened to these people who elected Labour or whom Labour pledged to help? What are their employment prospects?

Again you have to wade through the figures. Trimming this down over the past 5 years ( a period that pretty much covers EU expansion) The ONS figures have shown that since 2002 the number of foreign workers in Britain has climbed by 964,000 while UK-born employment has dropped by 478,000.

This is a serious problem and instead of being addresed it was hidden. We have also had rising youth unemployment; the highest in a decade with those aged 16-24 now 300% more likely to be out of work than workers aged 25+ as opposed to less than 50% more likely in 1997 according to the recent Joseph Rowntree report. The government can trumpet 'record employment' all it wants but huge swathes of Britain are not in record employment and are seeing less opportunity in the job market.

----

I really need to start my own commentary thread

[Silent Hunter]

At the end of the day, the job should go to the best person capable of doing it, whatever their nationality, unless there's a compelling reason for it to be otherwise (as in national security).

afleitch, is that that youth unemployment figure those who are not in work, training or education?

[afleitch]

At the end of the day, the job should go to the best person capable of doing it, whatever their nationality, unless there's a compelling reason for it to be otherwise (as in national security).

afleitch, is that that youth unemployment figure those who are not in work, training or education?

Yes, as both a % and a raw figure IIRC.

[Silent Hunter]

Hang on, don't those youth employment figures cover all youths, British or not?

[afleitch]

Hang on, don't those youth employment figures cover all youths, British or not?

Yes, in the same manner that employment figures as we've noted cover all workers. FTR Youth unemployment fell and started rising almost exponentially in 2004. I don't quite see what your getting at considering youth unemployment was the very last point of the post

[Silent Hunter]

Hang on, don't those youth employment figures cover all youths, British or not?

Yes, in the same manner that employment figures as we've noted cover all workers. FTR Youth unemployment fell and started rising almost exponentially in 2004. I don't quite see what your getting at considering youth unemployment was the very last point of the post

2004 was the year of the EU expansion. If a lot of young Central and Eastern Europeans came over at that point and became unemployed then or later, it would naturally raise the figures (both as percentage and raw, since they wouldn't necessarily speak the language). They're merely shifting youth unemployment from the 2004 entrants to the UK.

It's like the American uninsured numbers, interesting but useless when one thinks about it.

[afleitch]

Hang on, don't those youth employment figures cover all youths, British or not?

Yes, in the same manner that employment figures as we've noted cover all workers. FTR Youth unemployment fell and started rising almost exponentially in 2004. I don't quite see what your getting at considering youth unemployment was the very last point of the post

2004 was the year of the EU expansion. If a lot of young Central and Eastern Europeans came over at that point and became unemployed then or later, it would naturally raise the figures (both as percentage and raw, since they wouldn't necessarily speak the language). They're merely shifting youth unemployment from the 2004 entrants to the UK.

It's like the American uninsured numbers, interesting but useless when one thinks about it.

Which is in fact the opposite of what we know to be true when it comes to employment patterns amongst East Europeans

Are you prepared to address the rest of the rebuttal?

[Silent Hunter]

Figures change in everything. Death tallies, employment, how many people watched a TV programme. Better communication is needed, but more often than not it's a Civil Service error.

Prospects for employment? Much better than they were under Mr. Major and Mrs. Thatcher.

One potential problem with that Rowntree report- the 300% figure, which I'd like actual numbers. If the figure for over 25s rose dramatically and the 16-24 figures remained the same, then the difference would rise.

The number of foreign workers in the UK has risen because there are more foreigners, true. Then again, a lot of those are doing jobs that most Brits don't want to do.

[Silent Hunter]

One more point on employment, afleitch. Ageing population must at least partly contribute to the drop in UK employment numbers.

Changing the subject somewhat (although the previous conversation may continue), who here would drink "champagne" out of a can?

[afleitch]

One more point on employment, afleitch. Ageing population must at least partly contribute to the drop in UK employment numbers.

IIRC the raw figures for those of working age have increased. Aging population or not, the population is still growing. The difference is when a child is born it doens't become working age for 16 years. If someone hops off a train to work here, they are and the figures increase.

[Silent Hunter]

Why is the Civil Service continually losing things?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why is the Civil Service continually losing things?

Most large organisations lose things or act in an incompetent way regarding the security of their customers, we just don't hear about it so often. Although we did hear something about it earlier today. I do hope that no one hear has an insurance policy with Norwich Union...

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Oops x2

[Democratic Hawk]

Oops x2

Right that's it. Enough of this private contracting when it comes to public services, especially personal data. Enough of doing things on the frickin' cheap

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Prospects for employment? Much better than they were under Mr. Major and Mrs. Thatcher.

Indeed. I remember a certain Mrs T campaigning back in 1979 on campaign "LABOUR ISN'T WORKING" complete with huge dole queues, only for her government to ramp up unemployment as quick as they possibly could. Yes, the ushering in of an era of mass welfare dependency not seen since the 1930s

At least, us progressives only ever saw welfare as the safety net it was only ever intended to be. Them neo-liberal reactionaries did their level best to ensure it became a way of life. And Labour are having to deal with the consequences

When David Cameron atones for the part his party played in generating the economic conditions that sowed the seeds of his so-called "broken society", I might start and have a bit more respect for him. Not that my respect is easy to come by, whether friend or foe. That 'Kruschev Moment' is a long time coming. Until such time as it does, he's a fake

I'm not surprised so many young people of parents cynically thrown the scrap heap are claiming incapacity. It's the only ruddy life they know. It makes my blood boil

Dave

[Silent Hunter]

I've just finished watching Schindler's List. If you haven't yet seen that film, I strongly suggest you do.

If you're ever in Poland and can so do, I also suggest you visit Auschwitz.

[Silent Hunter]

Major commentary on the US presidential election will wait until the nominees are clear. I don't want to write a full thing on Huckabee/Obama now and have Huckabee/Clinton or something completely different. It's still only Iowa (who decides to start this thing so early now- Congress should step in).

[Verily]

Major commentary on the US presidential election will wait until the nominees are clear. I don't want to write a full thing on Huckabee/Obama now and have Huckabee/Clinton or something completely different. It's still only Iowa (who decides to start this thing so early now- Congress should step in).

Congress would only make itself more unpopular by stepping. Not that I disagree, but Congress and the federal government are much weaker than they should be in the US. People put way too much stock in the "states as independent" notion.

[Silent Hunter]

When has it ever been safe to walk the streets of London alone at night?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

When has it ever been safe to walk the streets of London alone at night?

Why during The Good Old Days of course.

[afleitch]

When has it ever been safe to walk the streets of London alone at night?

Why during The Good Old Days of course.

The Blitz I think is the answer we're all trying to find here

[Tetro Kornbluth]

When has it ever been safe to walk the streets of London alone at night?

Why during The Good Old Days of course.

You forgot the obiligatory "When the tories were in power" bit.