TTY - NME edition and "Istanbul" chart update

hey, whatever happened with the court case thingie against NME , I forgot

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

I'm not sure what, if anything, this has got to do with the point you want to make about immigration and/or NME's non-apology.



No, s/he really didn't, I'm afraid. The NME didn't apologise for depicting Morrissey a racist. In essence, they said that they regretted that Morrissey misunderstood what they wrote. Morrissey settled for this because he knew it was the best he could hope for. I'm not sure how many times I'll have to repeat that and invite you to check their "apology" before you get it.



You do understand that our Tory-led government wants to reduce immigration, and that, furthermore, it wanted to bury the report from which I've quoted because it undermined their rhetoric about the disadvantages of immigration?



Just back up your assertions with evidence or accept that you're wrong and stop talking.

Lol, accept you're wrong. I call stupid on anyone that pretends that millions of people immigrating in a short period of time has no affect on anything. I'm not even anti-immigration, it's just that you're talking utter bollocks. The Tory government like the Labour one could reduce immigration if they wanted to over night but they don't want to, it's just lip service to nob heads that lap up whatever they're told.

That non-apology was enough for Morrissey, who in a pre-court hearing was found to be in the right meaning if he'd continued legal action he'd most likely have won, hence the NME's statement. To pretend they never called him racist is c***ish. No go run along with your multi quoting, if you've learnt how to do that you can learn how to register.

 

[Orson Swells]

Now go run along with your multi quoting, if you've learnt how to do that you can learn how to register.

I'm guessing he already has registered!

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Now go run along with your multi quoting, if you've learnt how to do that you can learn how to register.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing he already has registered!

Maybe!

Oddly enough I think if you go to live in another country then chances are you're going to be determined to better your life and you'll no doubt offer a lot to the place that you move to and I also think that the World's riches should be better shared out rather than a few people protecting their own interests while other people are forced to move countries just to survive. The flip side to this is that immigration is a tool to increase the riches at the top and decrease the share of the spoils at the bottom. As an issue it's not as straight forward as just shouting racism whenever somebody share's a concern over its impact - Daily Mail style journalism obviously doesn't help.

 

[billybu69]

The NME special by the way, is an appalling rip off.flimsy and cheap with no new content whatsoever and a price of £5.99 a shocker.

 

[Anonymous]

Lol, accept you're wrong. I call stupid on anyone that pretends that millions of people immigrating in a short period of time has no affect on anything.

Strawman.

I'm not even anti-immigration, it's just that you're talking utter bollocks. The Tory government like the Labour one could reduce immigration if they wanted to over night but they don't want to, it's just lip service to nob heads that lap up whatever they're told.

Where's the empirical evidence for your belief that immigration depresses wages and displaces British workers? You do seem pretty adamant that you're right about this; surely you're not just latching onto things you've read in UKIP pamphlets and tabloid headlines?

C'mon, Charlie, let's see some reliable facts and figures.

That non-apology was enough for Morrissey, who in a pre-court hearing was found to be in the right meaning if he'd continued legal action he'd most likely have won, hence the NME's statement. To pretend they never called him racist is c***ish. No go run along with your multi quoting, if you've learnt how to do that you can learn how to register.

Yes, we know that what Morrissey got from the NME fell very far short of what he'd insisted he'd get in open court. Ask yourself why that was.

Let's be clear, though: this "pre-court hearing" you keep talking about amounted to no more than a meeting of counsel for both parties where an out-of-court settlement was agreed. There was no "finding" that Morrissey was "in the right" and certainly no concession from the NME that they'd libelled him. Had such a concession been made, you can be pretty sure that it would've been included in the NME's apology, and surer still that there would've followed a self-satisfied "statement" from Morrissey on True To You confirming that he had prevailed over the NME in his libel action (cf. the Quantick/Word case). I see no posts like that on True To You. Funny that.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Strawman.



Where's the empirical evidence for your belief that immigration depresses wages and displaces British workers? You do seem pretty adamant that you're right about this; surely you're not just latching onto things you've read in UKIP pamphlets and tabloid headlines?

C'mon, Charlie, let's see some reliable facts and figures.



Yes, we know that what Morrissey got from the NME fell very far short of what he'd insisted he'd get in open court. Ask yourself why that was.

Let's be clear, though: this "pre-court hearing" you keep talking about amounted to no more than a meeting of counsel for both parties where an out-of-court settlement was agreed. There was no "finding" that Morrissey was "in the right" and certainly no concession from the NME that they'd libelled him. Had such a concession been made, you can be pretty sure that it would've been included in the NME's apology, and surer still that there would've followed a self-satisfied "statement" from Morrissey on True To You confirming that he had prevailed over the NME in his libel action (cf. the Quantick/Word case). I see no posts like that on True To You. Funny that.

Here you go...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16484918

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration

And for inferring that I like UKIP, kindly f*** off you utter c***.

 

[Anonymous]

Here you go...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16484918

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration

And for inferring that I like UKIP, kindly f*** off you utter c***.

Great! Okay, let's crunch some numbers...

The Migration Advisory Committee's analysis - which is, according to your BBC story, "the most persuasive because it draws on in-depth analysis and research" - says that, in recent years, about 160,000 British workers have been displaced by immigrant labour. The UK's working-age, economically-active population numbers some 32.7 million people. Therefore, <0.5% of British workers have been displaced.

Consistent with this, the MAC, having done a literature review, stated that, "Most studies conclude that migrants had little or no impact on native employment rates, even though some found that migrants were associated with a small reduction in native employment rates." They also say, "Our results indicate that inflows of working-age EU migrants did not have a statistically significant association with native employment."

The Migration Observatory's findings are pretty much the same as those of the Home Office academics upon whom you heaped much scorn, earlier in the thread. They say that any displacement of British labour by immigrant workers is likely to be short-term and only likely to be evident during periods of recession. They also say that those who are most likely to be displaced by migrant workers are migrant workers who are already working in the UK.

On the subject of wages, the MAC report a variety of studies with a variety of results, ranging from (1) an average drop in wages of £2.30 per annum to (2) "little or no impact on average wages" to (3) an average increase in wages of £22.50 per annum, caused by immigration.

Now, Charlie, I'm not saying you're a racist, but it seems probable that you're a good-natured moron.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Great! Okay, let's crunch some numbers...

The Migration Advisory Committee's analysis - which is, according to your BBC story, "the most persuasive because it draws on in-depth analysis and research" - says that, in recent years, about 160,000 British workers have been displaced by immigrant labour. The UK's working-age, economically-active population numbers some 32.7 million people. Therefore, <0.5% of British workers have been displaced.

Consistent with this, the MAC, having done a literature review, stated that, "Most studies conclude that migrants had little or no impact on native employment rates, even though some found that migrants were associated with a small reduction in native employment rates." They also say, "Our results indicate that inflows of working-age EU migrants did not have a statistically significant association with native employment."

The Migration Observatory's findings are pretty much the same as those of the Home Office academics upon whom you heaped much scorn, earlier in the thread. They say that any displacement of British labour by immigrant workers is likely to be short-term and only likely to be evident during periods of recession. They also say that those who are most likely to be displaced by migrant workers are migrant workers who are already working in the UK.

On the subject of wages, the MAC report a variety of studies with a variety of results, ranging from (1) an average drop in wages of £2.30 per annum to (2) "little or no impact on average wages" to (3) an average increase in wages of £22.50 per annum, caused by immigration.

Now, Charlie, I'm not saying you're a racist, but it seems probable that you're a good-natured moron.

There's a problem with entering into a debate with someone who picks out snippets of a topic and ignores everything else. I rumbled it as soon as the multi-quotes started to come out which ignored much of what was said each time. I could push this as it's clear that it's the poorest in society that are affected, I could say that those 150,000 peoples' live obviously don't matter. But I won't because I'm dealing with someone who doesn't play with a straight bat.

Of course, I must be racist through, it's not like I didn't grow up in a mixed race house or that my wife is an immigrant or anything. Or it could be that some anonymous c*** disappeared so far up his own self righteous arsehole that he can't make a sound judgement anymore in fear of his own shadow whispering he's being racist to him. This is the trouble with a few on the left, they're as extreme as those on the right. Once you pick a side you can't come to a logical outcome.

 

[Anonymous]

There's a problem with entering into a debate with someone who picks out snippets of a topic and ignores everything else. I rumbled it as soon as the multi-quotes started to come out which ignored much of what was said each time. I could push this as it's clear that it's the poorest in society that are affected, I could say that those 150,000 peoples' live obviously don't matter. But I won't because I'm dealing with someone who doesn't play with a straight bat.

Of course, I must be racist through, it's not like I didn't grow up in a mixed race house or that my wife is an immigrant or anything. Or it could be that some anonymous c*** disappeared so far up his own self righteous arsehole that he can't make a sound judgement anymore in fear of his own shadow whispering he's being racist to him. This is the trouble with a few on the left, they're as extreme as those on the right. Once you pick a side you can't come to a logical outcome.

Oh dear. I've said it twice already, but it clearly bears repeating: I'm not calling you a racist. Simply cause I'm querying your opinions on immigration, you seem to think I am, though. Why is that, Charlie? Why do you think that?

You should probably spend a bit of time actually reading those articles you cited. I've got to be honest, though - I think you're gonna be disappointed

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Oh dear. I've said it twice already, but it clearly bears repeating: I'm not calling you a racist. Simply cause I'm querying your opinions on immigration, you seem to think I am, though. Why is that, Charlie? Why do you think that?

You should probably spend a bit of time actually reading those articles you cited. I've got to be honest, though - I think you're gonna be disappointed

I've read them. I'm probably guilty of looking at the effect on real people rather than just dismissing stuff as stats and insignificant. 150,000 people isn't insignificant, I guess it is if you're not one of them. I don't believe immigration is the be all and end all like UKIP and The Daily Mail would have us believe but it is a factor. There are plenty of ways that we're kept in tow, like keeping house prices artificially high, creating an unemployment levels that's used to keep the population in check (this was done in the 80's but it's been maintained very well, after all you don't want a workforce that is too powerful), ensuring wage levels are kept to a minimum while ensuring that enough people have enough money so that those in power have enough support to carry on, having a politicized police force that it is always ready to crush any dissent and having spies to spy on any parts of the population that veer from the establishment norm. Immigration is just a small part of the bigger picture and one that I'm quite fond of as again - going back to my first point - we're talking about real people who on the main in my experience offer a great deal. I just don't buy the point that it doesn't matter and has no impact on the population, especially as nobody seems to know how many people come and go.

 

[Anonymous]

I've read them. I'm probably guilty of looking at the effect on real people rather than just dismissing stuff as stats and insignificant. 150,000 people isn't insignificant, I guess it is if you're not one of them. I don't believe immigration is the be all and end all like UKIP and The Daily Mail would have us believe but it is a factor. There are plenty of ways that we're kept in tow, like keeping house prices artificially high, creating an unemployment levels that's used to keep the population in check (this was done in the 80's but it's been maintained very well, after all you don't want a workforce that is too powerful), ensuring wage levels are kept to a minimum while ensuring that enough people have enough money so that those in power have enough support to carry on, having a politicized police force that it is always ready to crush any dissent and having spies to spy on any parts of the population that veer from the establishment norm. Immigration is just a small part of the bigger picture and one that I'm quite fond of as again - going back to my first point - we're talking about real people who on the main in my experience offer a great deal. I just don't buy the point that it doesn't matter and has no impact on the population, especially as nobody seems to know how many people come and go.

Isn't the purpose of the sort of social science we've both referenced to try to generate a better understanding of the world around us, beyond simple common-sense perceptions?

Yes, low wages and unemployment are bad - they result in myriad forms of horrendous human hardship. Statistics can disguise that hardship, making the analysis seem a bit remote and inhumane, but quantitative measurement of this stuff - both in terms of degree and commonality - is crucial. Without it, newspapers like the Mail, the Express and the Sun can dupe us into believing pretty much anything. A continuous drip-feed of sensational headlines like this...

...leads to lots of people believing that immigrants are the cause of all of the UK's problems. Reliable quantitative data is the antidote to that. At the very least, it allows for the sort of slightly more measured discussion that I think we're now having.

Keep in mind that the articles you cited were able to conclude, at worst, that immigrant workers only displace British workers in the short-term and reduce average wages only by about £2 per annum. Yes, 160,000 displaced workers sounds like a lot, but put in the context of the economically active population, we can see that that's less than 0.5% of that population - 99.5% are not affected at all.

On the subject of accepting immigrants to swell the ranks of the reserve army of labour and depress wages, neither the state nor employers need immigrants for that: that's why both New Labour and the Coalition governments introduced their welfare-to-work policies for the chronically ill and disabled. This was expressly stated in a New Labour policy document, published in the mid-00s

(The only other thing I'll add is that, prior to starting my current job, I'd been out of work for over five years and I'm now doing a job for which I'm significantly overqualified.)