Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

VOTE: MHoC By-election (July 2014) Watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Who do you wish to elect as an MP in the TSR Model House of Commons?
    PicardianSocialist (sponsored by TSR Libertarian Party)
    9
    11.11%
    tehFrance (sponsored by TSR Conservative Party)
    22
    27.16%
    St. Brynjar (sponsored by TSR Green, TSR Socialist, and TSR Labour parties)
    32
    39.51%
    Ruitker (sponsored by TSR UKIP)
    5
    6.17%
    MacDaddi (sponsored by TSR Liberal Party)
    13
    16.05%
    Spoilt Ballot
    0
    0%

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    How would the candidates improve the ghettos of South Oxfordshire?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Politisphere)


    Your manifesto says...

    "I would fight for the right of anyone to make Britain their home." - Is it really wise to allow any criminal into Britain? Furthermore, is it sustainable to allow an unlimited number of people into Britain as you are indirectly saying?
    Well, convicted criminals are an exception, obviously - but that's an issue relating to crime and justice, as well as our relationship and cooperation with other country's legal systems, rather than immigration policy.

    Yes, I believe free immigration is sustainable. Assuming that you're not playing Devil's Advocate, why do you believe otherwise?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    How would the candidates improve the ghettos of South Oxfordshire?
    Devo max is the only option.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PicardianSocialist)
    Yes, I believe free immigration is sustainable. Assuming that you're not playing Devil's Advocate, why do you believe otherwise?
    The immigrants will grow old further increasing the ageing population pensioner time bomb. Using immigrants on work visas to support the economy but forcing them to return home preventing them from growing elderly and contributing to the time bomb is the better option.

    If someone with no skills and no savings is allowed to move to Britain, who is going to support them? Coupled with a recession in which competition for most jobs was over 300:1, there are not enough jobs for them to do. The initial response is "oh, but immigrants will increase demand for things creating jobs." - whilst this may be true for wealthy immigrants or immigrants with a job, if immigrants are poor, have no job, have no skills and don't speak English decreasing their prospects of finding a job, they don't have the money to spend stimulating growth. They become a burden. Discriminate against immigrants like these.

    Even though the overall effect of immigration is positive, with immigrants as a whole boosting to the UK economy, there is no harm is preventing access to those who won't contribute, or are incapable of contributing into Britain. Actually, it's logical to think preventing such people from moving to Britain would magnify the positive effects of immigration.

    Only idiots would argue to completely isolate Britain and prevent all immigration, but I argue a line needs to be drawn based on quality and quantity. All of the positive effects of immigration can be seen using stricter work permits instead of an open door policy. With this in mind, is there any argument for an open-door policy to everyone?

    With the millions of 'good' immigrants entering Britain there are bound to be 'bad' immigrants (they could be unknown criminals right through to people looking to exploit Britain). Instead of deporting the bad immigrants when they are in Britain, it's easier to vet them before entering. Immigration is sustainable but free immigration to all isn't.
    • Offline

      12
      (Original post by The Politisphere)


      Your manifesto says...

      "The Rights, which we have plans to enshrine in a Bill of Rights for the British people." - Reading down the pages UKIP introduced a bill and Liberal members campaigned against the point of the bill claiming the Human Rights Act is perfectly fine. How come your party has had a change of face?

      "
      Your vote will be cast for a non-divisive, inclusive, active and (I hope) friendly House member." - In other words you are a "yes person" who goes along with anything and doesn't want to start a debate just in case disagreement is caused. - Is this really the type of candidate we need?



      Your manifesto says...

      "I would fight for the right of anyone to make Britain their home." - Is it really wise to allow any criminal into Britain? Furthermore, is it sustainable to allow an unlimited number of people into Britain as you are indirectly saying?
      I didnt particularly like UKIPs one. We have decided to introduce that as a new policy after some consultation - but every member is free to disagree with this.

      And ooooh interesting. I sit right in the middle of the political spectrum - does this mean I say yes to everything? By not divise I meant I wasn't controversial, I wouldn't cause controversy not because I am spinless. Unless, you are proposing something different? As an ex Liber with a more of a conscience ( ) I feel strongly about Civil Liberties as well as fiscal responsibility
      • Offline

        15
        (Original post by Will95206)
        Tories - Very Francophile but good
        I'm French, what'd you expect?
        (Original post by O133)
        Bit strange to see tehFrance's manifesto being so Eurosceptic when tehFrance himself has made some very pro-EU comments recently.
        I'm not Eurosceptic, I'm thinking about what's best for Europe and that's by letting the UK decide once and for all what they want after a reformation plan is put into place. If the British dislike the reformation plan, they can vote to leave the EU and then the EU can continue, integrate and get strong which is what I see happening anyway but the UK's a hindrance.
        (Original post by Will95206)
        Yes I agree and with the whole French thing and being Eurosceptic it is a bit contradictory!
        French thing? I'm French, it isn't a thing it's me :pierre:

        See above for answer to Eurosceptism.
        (Original post by Cheese_Monster)
        tehFrance's seems a bit of an appeasement to the Tories, as well as back-tracking on previous statements claiming to have moved leftward, especially considering he has claimed to be a Europhile on many occasions and now sounds like David Cameron.
        I'm a Europhile, I'm French and I think that a federal Europe is an okay idea under the right circumstances for continental Europe. The UK desperately needs reform within the EU in order for the UK to belong, it's either reform or the UK leaves and lets the EU get on with it. I'd be doing both the EU and UK a favour with reform/referendum.
        (Original post by RayApparently)
        International Baccalaureate? Woo hoo!

        But what have you got against GPs?
        Yes, it's the most comprehensibe program out there for learning so why not use it as standard in the UK?

        GPs are paid a lot to do not a lot compared to nurses who are paid little to do a lot.
        (Original post by That Bearded Man)
        Actually like tehfrance's idea of giving more powers to nurses.
        Thank you, I don't understand why powers are being constantly taken away from them when they are the first line and know more about what's happening the GPs and management of the hospital for example.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        Thank you for taking the time to respond.

        (Original post by The Politisphere)
        The immigrants will grow old further increasing the ageing population pensioner time bomb.
        I agree that there are structural problems with the pension system. Nevertheless, I would argue that these problems should be solved by reforming the pension system, rather than restricting immigration. Furthermore, it seems that immigration slows the rate of population ageing - should that not have the effect of postponing the explosion of the pension bomb?


        If someone with no skills and no savings is allowed to move to Britain, who is going to support them? Coupled with a recession in which competition for most jobs was over 300:1, there are not enough jobs for them to do. The initial response is "oh, but immigrants will increase demand for things creating jobs." - whilst this may be true for wealthy immigrants or immigrants with a job, if immigrants are poor, have no job, have no skills and don't speak English decreasing their prospects of finding a job, they don't have the money to spend stimulating growth. They become a burden. Discriminate against immigrants like these.

        Even though the overall effect of immigration is positive, with immigrants as a whole boosting to the UK economy, there is no harm is preventing access to those who won't contribute, or are incapable of contributing into Britain. Actually, it's logical to think preventing such people from moving to Britain would magnify the positive effects of immigration.
        I found this point a little confusing, but if I understand correctly you are arguing that there is 1. a long run scarcity of employment, and 2. that this will be a particular problem considering the way the welfare state is set up?

        Assuming that I have interpreted you correctly, I disagree. According to standard economic theory, we would not expect an increase in the supply of labour to lead to unemployment, but to falling wages. It doesn't really matter how many skills someone has, there should be a wage rate at which they can be employed. If you're not convinced by the theoretical case, there have been a number of studies which have found no relationship between immigration and employment (see here, here or here).

        If you're concerned about the fall in wages, I would again point you towards standard economic theory, which offers at least three reasons to be more optimistic about the effect of immigration on wage rates: First, if the supply of capital is fairly elastic, we would expect an increase in the supply of labour to lead to an increase in the supply of capital - if there are more people in the U.K., there will be more investment in the U.K.; Second, we typically expect trade to be a positive sum gain due to the benefits of comparative advantage and specialisation, as well as network effects - workers in the U.K. are more efficient than some of their foreign counterparts because they are in the U.K.; and third because the demand for low skilled labour is often extremely elastic, the wage rate of the poorest workers will not have to fall significantly to maintain full employment. Again, research by David Card has corroborated the standard theoretical case (though admittedly in a U.S. context.

        Now, there might be cases of people moving here and becoming 'burdens', in the sense that they don't work, but I don't think this is necessarily a case for immigration controls. To begin with, if people are willing to support their Somali aunt, that's their business, but I imagine by 'burdens' you were referring to those who relied on the welfare state, however I don't think this is a significantly stronger point. For one thing, that would be a problem with the welfare state, and it seems obvious that it should be dealt with through reforms to the welfare state. For instance, we could stop those who were not born here naturally claiming benefits or make them pay for the NHS. While it would make me uncomfortable turning immigrants into second class citizens, it seems far less unjust than not even letting them into the country. Furthermore, I have not seen any evidence that immigrants are a net drain of public finances, while this study found that, between 2001 and 2011, immigrants from the EEA contributed roughly 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits.


        Only idiots would argue to completely isolate Britain and prevent all immigration, but I argue a line needs to be drawn based on quality and quantity. All of the positive effects of immigration can be seen using stricter work permits instead of an open door policy. With this in mind, is there any argument for an open-door policy to everyone?
        I can think of two.

        From a social justice perspective, a policy of open borders naturally equalises global wage rates (for equivalent labour). Sure, by being forced to compete with foreign workers, some British workers might have to take a pay cut, but at the same time Haitians are going to get an equivalent rise (it's always worth remembering that it's not just employees competing, but employers, too). It seems unjust to keep someone in poverty just because they were born in the wrong part of the world.

        It's also worth remembering, as I said above, that immigration isn't a zero sum game. Because immigration will increase efficiency, the possible effects on economic growth are immense, with one study suggesting that a global policy of open borders could double world GDP (Table 2).

        With the millions of 'good' immigrants entering Britain there are bound to be 'bad' immigrants (they could be unknown criminals right through to people looking to exploit Britain). Instead of deporting the bad immigrants when they are in Britain, it's easier to vet them before entering. Immigration is sustainable but free immigration to all isn't.
        I'm sceptical that there are really that many criminals sneaking into the U.K., at least enough to justify anything close to current levels of immigration controls. Besides, while there might be benefits to screening immigrants there are also significant costs. Furthermore, does the whole thing not challenge the whole concept of the rule of law? Should we not assume immigrants are not criminals until we find evidence that they are?

        In any event, the immigration of criminals is really a crime/foreign policy issue, and should be dealt with through those channels.

        Finally, even if you think there are significant externalities due to immigration (whether they be due to employment, public finances, or crime), it makes far more sense to simply calculate the net external cost, charge migrants an immigration tariff at this level and just let people decide the correct amount of immigration. I hate to sound like a broken record (if your records are all economics lectures) but this fairly standard welfare economics.

        Sorry for long, rather rambly response
        Offline

        19
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by PicardianSocialist)
        QFA
        What is your opinion on anti-discrimination legislation such as the Equalities Act 2010? Do you believe businesses have the right to discriminate as they wish in regards to who they serve, even if that is in a homophobic/racist/sexist fashion, or is the right of the oppressed to equality greater?
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by PicardianSocialist)
        Thank you for taking the time to respond.

        I agree that there are structural problems with the pension system. Nevertheless, I would argue that these problems should be solved by reforming the pension system, rather than restricting immigration. Furthermore, it seems that immigration slows the rate of population ageing - should that not have the effect of postponing the explosion of the pension bomb?
        The article is highlighting how Britain needs young immigrant workers to take jobs, pay taxes and prop up the increasing number of elderly who have retired and not working. This is true but those immigrants will age and start to claim a pension. The only way to solve this is to abolish retirement and have people working for as long as possible which become difficult as old age brings falling health. Hence the need to use the young immigrant workers but make sure they return home instead of retiring in Britain. Once they leave, bring in new young immigrants. The cycle continues.

        (Original post by PicardianSocialist)
        I found this point a little confusing, but if I understand correctly you are arguing that there is 1. a long run scarcity of employment, and 2. that this will be a particular problem considering the way the welfare state is set up?

        Assuming that I have interpreted you correctly, I disagree. According to standard economic theory, we would not expect an increase in the supply of labour to lead to unemployment, but to falling wages. It doesn't really matter how many skills someone has, there should be a wage rate at which they can be employed. If you're not convinced by the theoretical case, there have been a number of studies which have found no relationship between immigration and employment (see here, here or here).
        I think you have misinterpreted me. I'm saying the increase in immigrants under a total open-door policy will be greater than the increase in number of jobs available. The ratio of people to jobs will increase. There have been no studies yet into this point - although one is currently under-way. Yes, but this is not true when there are not enough jobs to go around. That is, unless you support the theory there are an unlimited number of jobs available?

        (Original post by PicardianSocialist)
        If you're concerned about the fall in wages, I would again point you towards standard economic theory, which offers at least three reasons to be more optimistic about the effect of immigration on wage rates: First, if the supply of capital is fairly elastic, we would expect an increase in the supply of labour to lead to an increase in the supply of capital - if there are more people in the U.K., there will be more investment in the U.K.; Second, we typically expect trade to be a positive sum gain due to the benefits of comparative advantage and specialisation, as well as network effects - workers in the U.K. are more efficient than some of their foreign counterparts because they are in the U.K.; and third because the demand for low skilled labour is often extremely elastic, the wage rate of the poorest workers will not have to fall significantly to maintain full employment. Again, research by David Card has corroborated the standard theoretical case (though admittedly in a U.S. context.
        I wasn't getting at wage compression but whilst you mentioned it, the Home Office's Migration Advisory Committee published a report revealing wage compression has been caused my mass immigration in some parts of Britain especially amongst low-skilled, low-paying jobs immigrants dominate. Wage compression amongst higher paying jobs has not been found and the MAC's report is the only report to look at specific sectors of society instead of average wages as a whole hence the different findings.

        (Original post by PicardianSocialist)
        Now, there might be cases of people moving here and becoming 'burdens', in the sense that they don't work, but I don't think this is necessarily a case for immigration controls. To begin with, if people are willing to support their Somali aunt, that's their business, but I imagine by 'burdens' you were referring to those who relied on the welfare state, however I don't think this is a significantly stronger point. For one thing, that would be a problem with the welfare state, and it seems obvious that it should be dealt with through reforms to the welfare state. For instance, we could stop those who were not born here naturally claiming benefits or make them pay for the NHS. While it would make me uncomfortable turning immigrants into second class citizens, it seems far less unjust than not even letting them into the country. Furthermore, I have not seen any evidence that immigrants are a net drain of public finances, while this study found that, between 2001 and 2011, immigrants from the EEA contributed roughly 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits.
        I was thinking elderly immigrants, low skilled immigrants, and poor immigrants. It's interesting but have you noticed how these studies look at immigration as a whole? They don't focus on specific groups of immigrants. There's a debate currently going on about wealthy, skilled immigrants propping up other immigrants. Of course it's all theoretical as there have been no studies into say, just low skilled immigrants, or just low paid immigrants. If indeed a study was done finding low skilled immigrants were not net contributors and their wider effect on public services with the little tax they pay and possible wage compression, they should be discriminated against in favour of higher paid immigrants. It's unwise to say all immigration is good immigration until a full report has been conducted. There could even be a study done between Romanian immigrants and Polish immigrants. The topic is far too complex to for a general report on immigration as a whole (TSR UKIP's policy by the way calls for a commission to look into individual sections of immigration so we can have a full picture).


        I can think of two.

        From a social justice perspective, a policy of open borders naturally equalises global wage rates (for equivalent labour). Sure, by being forced to compete with foreign workers, some British workers might have to take a pay cut, but at the same time Haitians are going to get an equivalent rise (it's always worth remembering that it's not just employees competing, but employers, too). It seems unjust to keep someone in poverty just because they were born in the wrong part of the world.
        This is an ideological debate where I disagree. I would never support a policy which would lead to a wage cut for British workers (as you have admitted) to increase the wage in Haiti. Quite frankly, I don't care about low paid Haitians. I want to see higher paid and richer Britons. Your point about competition could be extended to form a simplistic argument claiming immigrants undercut British workers in the high-skilled section of society. Highly skilled immigrants from countries with a lower average wage are happy to do the job for less than a similarly qualified Briton. As a result, the Briton takes the middle job as has be seen in the report you linked with your previous response.

        It's also worth remembering, as I said above, that immigration isn't a zero sum game. Because immigration will increase efficiency, the possible effects on economic growth are immense, with one study suggesting that a global policy of open borders could double world GDP (Table 2).
        I actually read that. It's a shame the growth would come from an industrial revolution in Africa and higher paid Chinese/Indian workers who are currently farmers.

        I'm sceptical that there are really that many criminals sneaking into the U.K., at least enough to justify anything close to current levels of immigration controls. Besides, while there might be benefits to screening immigrants there are also significant costs. Furthermore, does the whole thing not challenge the whole concept of the rule of law? Should we not assume immigrants are not criminals until we find evidence that they are?
        Is it worth taking the chance though. After all, 9/11 was conducted and planned by non-nationals. Stricter border controls also combat the spread of wild diseases and invader plant species. Australian biological controls have been highly effective at preventing outbreaks of disease in the agricultural and cattle industries. UK biological controls have been effective in making the UK rabies-free.

        If challenging the background and motives of immigrants challenges the rule of law concept, surely we should assume all teachers and child workers are innocent and forget CRB checks?

        In any event, the immigration of criminals is really a crime/foreign policy issue, and should be dealt with through those channels.
        Not really, your manifesto calls for the right to allow anyone to settle in Britain. I support keeping criminals out. Putting it down to foreign policy/justice is a an attempt to pass the buck. It's vague too. Do you support criminals entering and just dealing with them if they commit crime in Britain or do you support keeping them out. The CIA blames lax border controls for the hotbed of Islamic extremism we see.

        Finally, even if you think there are significant externalities due to immigration (whether they be due to employment, public finances, or crime), it makes far more sense to simply calculate the net external cost, charge migrants an immigration tariff at this level and just let people decide the correct amount of immigration. I hate to sound like a broken record (if your records are all economics lectures) but this fairly standard welfare economics.
        I think the debate of immigration over-emphasises the economic arguments and completely ignores the social arguments. Multiculturalism hasn't all been good, and segregation exists on a large scale. Immigration over the last decade has been too much, too quickly. Vet the immigrants, decease the influx, promote integration and in doing so cut down on segregation and race related issues. As a very simple point, you will never have a fully integrated society with everyone playing happy families if you don't all have a common language. At requirement for English should be imposed at the bear minimum. The same should apply for British expatriates.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by The Politisphere)

        X
        Hey, I looked over your reply and it looks interesting. I'll try and do a response ASAP, but I just started a new job today so I'm a little knackered.
        • Offline

          12
          Anyone got any questions?
          Offline

          16
          ReputationRep:
          I thought TehFrance was permabanned from the MHoC. Good to see the Frog is back.
          • Offline

            15
            (Original post by thunder_chunky)
            I thought TehFrance was permabanned from the MHoC. Good to see the Frog is back.
            Yes, the frog is back :woo::party::lol:
            Offline

            16
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by tehFrance)
            Yes, the frog is back :woo::party::lol:
            Give 'em hell Froggy. Just like the old days.
            Offline

            20
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Will95206)

            Why are the Govt continuing to put forward candidates when the vast majoirty of the highlighted seats were Govt ones?

            The Govt sponsored candidate will clearly win, with all of the other parties going solo the Govt wanted to extend their majority, in spite on not being able to fill their seats or be active enough.

            Govt - Lack of appealing pictures but lacks any form of substance as well as it clearly being a Green manifesto to but the S and L parties are just endorsing them to increase the Govts majority.
            The government is not going to extend its majority as the seat to be replaced was already a government one.
            Offline

            14
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by clh_hilary)
            The government is not going to extend its majority as the seat to be replaced was already a government one.
            No the seat was an independent one, if it was a government seat then not all of the parties would be able to endorse St. Brynjar.
            • Offline

              15
              (Original post by clh_hilary)
              The government is not going to extend its majority as the seat to be replaced was already a government one.
              Well it's an independent one so of course you're not going to extend your majority, you are however going to have a government sponsored seat when you can't fill your old seats. Ridiculous.
              Offline

              8
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Cryptographic)
              No the seat was an independent one, if it was a government seat then not all of the parties would be able to endorse St. Brynjar.
              (Original post by tehFrance)
              Well it's an independent one so of course you're not going to extend your majority, you are however going to have a government sponsored seat when you can't fill your old seats. Ridiculous.
              Hear hear, if they cannot keep their original seat then why are they allowed more!
              Offline

              3
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by tehFrance)
              Well it's an independent one so of course you're not going to extend your majority, you are however going to have a government sponsored seat when you can't fill your old seats. Ridiculous.
              (Original post by Will95206)
              Hear hear, if they cannot keep their original seat then why are they allowed more!
              St. Brynjar's a Green, and we're having no trouble at all filling our seats - so we effectively have a spare, active member who couldn't fill a seat elsewhere. So this argument makes no sense.
              • Offline

                15
                (Original post by Blue Meltwater)
                St. Brynjar's a Green, and we're having no trouble at all filling our seats - so we effectively have a spare, active member who couldn't fill a seat elsewhere. So this argument makes no sense.
                May be a Green member but he's sponsored by other parties in the Government which is why it's baffling as to why they're sponsoring when they struggle themselves.
               
               
               
              TSR Support Team

              We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

              Updated: July 27, 2014
            • See more of what you like on The Student Room

              You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

            • Poll
              Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
            • See more of what you like on The Student Room

              You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

            • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

              Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

              Quick reply
              Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.