UKIP's proposal "intellectually and morally bankrupt"

Watch
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
http://www.adamsmith.org/news/ukips-...ally-bankrupt/

The Adam Smith Institute launched a savage attack on UKIP's manifesto proposal:


Commenting on UKIP’s upcoming announcement that its general election manifesto will pledge to bring UK net migration down to 50,000 people per year for employment, Research Director of the Adam Smith Institute, Sam Bowman, said:

UKIP’s line on immigration is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Despite what UKIP claims, immigration is good for virtually everyone in society, rich and poor alike. The evidence is clear that even low-skilled immigration only hurts low-skilled native wages temporarily, and does not affect the number of jobs available to natives at all. The reason for this is that immigrants demand services as well as supplying them: every job taken by an immigrant also means a new job will be created to supply him or her with their needs.

Opposing immigration is economically no different to 19th Century-style trade protectionism – the only difference is where the people we’re trading with are. Economists, left and right, agree that trade makes everyone richer, and immigration just allows us to trade with more people more often at home. One of the best things about the EU has been the guarantee of free movement between member states; to throw that away would be an economic catastrophe. If UKIP’s priority is to leave the EU, it is vital that they maintain open borders with the EU.

Immigrants are a huge boon to the welfare state. Because they are usually young and motivated to find work, they pay more in taxes overall than they cost the state in services. As Britain gets older, with more and more retirees to provide for with pensions and healthcare, we will need more immigrants to avoid a massive debt crisis by 2050. Far from being a cost to the state, immigrants may be the only way to fulfill our obligations to the older generation.
2
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
I don't support UKIP, but everyone seems to miss out the population growth part of immigration. Many would argue this country is already too densely populated as it is.

Lots of other countries manage their economies just fine without having unrestricted immigration from other countries. The argument that tightening immigration rules would lead to economic catastrophe is a fallacy.
1
reply
goape
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
http://www.adamsmith.org/news/ukips-...ally-bankrupt/

The Adam Smith Institute launched a savage attack on UKIP's manifesto proposal:


Commenting on UKIP’s upcoming announcement that its general election manifesto will pledge to bring UK net migration down to 50,000 people per year for employment, Research Director of the Adam Smith Institute, Sam Bowman, said:
Agreed, but it doesn't take into account social costs of immigration. Nor the pressure put upon land (a finite and very scarce resource) and in turn the pressure put on the housing market - which needs more supply, not more demand.
1
reply
Commercial Paper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
It's a good argument but it misses the following:

- The social costs of immigration
- Evidence to support economic catastrophe?
- The population growth issue
- What % of immigrants are not on minimum wage jobs and therefore pay more in tax?
- The cost of time in terms of a strain on services
- The cost on infrastructure (since we have invested nothing in this or services, it would be interesting to see if the tax immigrants paid would be enough to finance such an investment)
- Social cost of lack of integration on natives
- Opportunity cost of natives not gaining employment and therefore going on benefits (and whether the taxes paid by immigrants out weigh this)
- The average quality of immigration (how much do we actually need and in what areas?)
- How open borders impact the ability to plan for services and infrastructure and whether or not this is costly

With the greatest of respect, just seems like someone wrote up what they'd like to say without addressing the core issues.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
thesabbath
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
This attack seems to consist of "I work for the Adam Smith Institute, so shut up".
1
reply
n00
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by RFowler)
I don't support UKIP, but everyone seems to miss out the population growth part of immigration. Many would argue this country is already too densely populated as it is.
Meh, the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is only 2.27% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096
0
reply
Time Tourist
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
The displacement of the English people from their towns and cities and the rupturing of entire communities and ways of life is what is morally bankrupt, but what would The Adam Smith Institute know about that?
1
reply
DErasmus
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by n00)
Meh, the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is only 2.27% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096
Good hopefully we can protect our green and pleasant land from the vulgarity of London city life.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by n00)
Meh, the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is only 2.27% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096
No it isn't, your figures are very misleading.

The "built on" figure doesn't include things like parks and allotments - and other things which are part of an urban area but not technically built on. That's pretty useless when talking about urban sprawl, you need to look at the whole urban area.

Actually, around 10% of this country is urbanised - that includes all parts of urban areas. Bear in mind that woodland area is only 12%, so 10% urbanised is actually quite a lot.

The link you posted even says this:
"The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales."
1
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by RFowler)
I don't support UKIP, but everyone seems to miss out the population growth part of immigration. Many would argue this country is already too densely populated as it is.

Lots of other countries manage their economies just fine without having unrestricted immigration from other countries. The argument that tightening immigration rules would lead to economic catastrophe is a fallacy.
The picture in your sig suggests the UK isn't too heavily populated...
0
reply
n00
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by RFowler)
No it isn't, your figures are very misleading.

The "built on" figure doesn't include things like parks and allotments - and other things which are part of an urban area but not technically built on. That's pretty useless when talking about urban sprawl, you need to look at the whole urban area.

Actually, around 10% of this country is urbanised - that includes all parts of urban areas. Bear in mind that woodland area is only 12%, so 10% urbanised is actually quite a lot.

The link you posted even says this:
"The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales."
Which still leaves 90% with much of the urban area not built on as well. Doesn't really sound overpopulated.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by RFowler)
No it isn't, your figures are very misleading.

The "built on" figure doesn't include things like parks and allotments - and other things which are part of an urban area but not technically built on. That's pretty useless when talking about urban sprawl, you need to look at the whole urban area.

Actually, around 10% of this country is urbanised - that includes all parts of urban areas. Bear in mind that woodland area is only 12%, so 10% urbanised is actually quite a lot.

The link you posted even says this:
"The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales."
So 98% of Scotland is rural? As is almost 90% of England?
0
reply
perfectsymbology
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
It's pointless to argue with UKIP on facts because their whole reasoning is largely based on emotion anyway. It may be beneficial for business to have completely open borders to the rest of the world but by and large the majority would not accept it as the changes in society would be too rapid.
0
reply
Time Tourist
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by perfectsymbology)
It's pointless to argue with UKIP on facts because their whole reasoning is largely based on emotion anyway. It may be beneficial for business to have completely open borders to the rest of the world but by and large the majority would not accept it as the changes in society would be too rapid.
There's no such thing as an 'open border' - if a nation's borders are open then it doesn't actually have a border. And it won't actually be a nation for much longer... like modern Britain.
0
reply
perfectsymbology
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by Time Tourist)
There's no such thing as an 'open border' - if a nation's borders are open then it doesn't actually have a border. And it won't actually be a nation for much longer... like modern Britain.
I'm not sure what you 'kippers' are moaning about. Most immigrants these days are blonde haired blue eyed Polish men and women. I think Polish will integrate very well into English society after a generation or two apart from the funny sounding surnames.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by Quady)
The picture in your sig suggests the UK isn't too heavily populated...
No it doesn't, the picture is from inside the North York Moors National Park not far from where I live. Of course that part isn't heavily populated, and it needs to stay that way.

You wouldn't know this unless you knew where this picture is, but Middlesbrough and Teesside lies within driving distance past that hill in the picture and if this was taken at night you would be able to see it easily - a perfect example of why further urban expansion and population growth is a bad idea.

Just because we have countryside with few people living there doesn't mean it can or should be used for housing more people. The countryside is not just empty space there to be built on. The argument that because we have countryside there is plenty of space for more people and housing is quite frankly idiotic.

(Original post by n00)
Which still leaves 90% with much of the urban area not built on as well. Doesn't really sound overpopulated.
The fact that parts of urban areas are not built on is irrelevant. Parks in the middle of cities are mostly not built on but you still count them as part of an urban area.

As I said in my last post, woodland area is only 12%, so 10% urbanised is actually quite a lot. 90% of this country is countryside, shouldn't we be keeping as much of it as we possibly can as countryside?
0
reply
n00
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by RFowler)
As I said in my last post, woodland area is only 12%, so 10% urbanised is actually quite a lot. 90% of this country is countryside, shouldn't we be keeping as much of it as we possibly can as countryside?
Yeah, not sure what relevance the percentage of woodland area is? Our woodlands were decimated, theres not much left, but it has been back on the increase of late. 90% is a lot to play with, we could double our urbanised areas and still have plenty of our countryside left, either way this overpopulated nonsense just doesn't add up.
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
http://www.adamsmith.org/news/ukips-...ally-bankrupt/

The Adam Smith Institute launched a savage attack on UKIP's manifesto proposal:


Commenting on UKIP’s upcoming announcement that its general election manifesto will pledge to bring UK net migration down to 50,000 people per year for employment, Research Director of the Adam Smith Institute, Sam Bowman, said:
All of their specific claims are correct although their conclusion is perhaps too strong.

The immigration debate should be - and in reality for UKIP supporters I think is - about whether we should maintain a broadly united national culture with historical continuity reaching back before 1980 or so, or become a cosmopolitan society albeit with unclear consequences for the ultimate evolution of our political, legal, and social institutions.

The focus on economics is misguided. Economically, immigration makes little difference in either direction. Some inelastic goods become more expensive, some generational transfers kick the can down the road (without changing their ultimate unsoundness), but we're talking +-20% or less either way. Socially, immigration is of vital importance. A situation in which 25-50% of the population has no familial connection to it before 1980, especially in the absence of strong integration pressures, will be a very different place.
0
reply
Time Tourist
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
(Original post by perfectsymbology)
I'm not sure what you 'kippers' are moaning about. Most immigrants these days are blonde haired blue eyed Polish men and women. I think Polish will integrate very well into English society after a generation or two apart from the funny sounding surnames.
Well that's dishonest, isn't it.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by n00)
Yeah, not sure what relevance the percentage of woodland area is? Our woodlands were decimated, theres not much left, but it has been back on the increase of late. 90% is a lot to play with, we could double our urbanised areas and still have plenty of our countryside left, either way this overpopulated nonsense just doesn't add up.
Woodland area just adds a bit of context, something to compare it to. I still maintain that the UK population is big enough and there isn't enough space to house more people without doing unacceptable damage.

Doubling urbanised areas would be a terrible idea, there isn't a lot of land you could use where you wouldn't destroy something valuable that really needs protecting. Then you also have the increased demand for food and the further pressure that would create - e.g further intensification of agriculture.

This is getting a bit off topic though, I think I'm going to stop here before I derail the thread.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you made your mind up on your five uni choices?

Yes, and I've sent off my application! (152)
55.07%
I've made my choices but havent sent my application yet (38)
13.77%
I've got a good idea about the choices I want to make (31)
11.23%
I'm researching but still not sure which universities I want to apply to (26)
9.42%
I haven't started researching yet (16)
5.8%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (13)
4.71%

Watched Threads

View All