EDIT: UK: 80% of all new jobs created since 1997 went to migrants

[afleitch]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7069779.stm

Nothing wrong in itself but...

''More than half of new jobs created under Labour since 1997 have gone to foreign workers, it has emerged. The government had previously claimed the majority of new jobs had been filled by British workers.

This appeared to be supported by figures released on Monday, despite the government admitting it had underestimated the number of migrants. But it later put out a clarification suggesting 52% - or 1.1 million - of new jobs created had gone to migrants.

BBC economics editor Evan Davies said the figures were "a major admission for a government that has been going on about British jobs for British workers".

----

D'oh. Massaging the figures only comes back and punches you on the nose.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Governments always try to fiddle figures to do with sensitive political issues (and will always do so).
Politically speaking it's probably no more damaging than just releasing accurate figures straight-away; the sort of people that pretend to get angry about the fact that Governments sometimes try to play silly games with figures tend to be politically committed and as such, politically irrelevant (slight exaggeration).

I'm a bit depressed that immigration remains as sensitive an issue as it is though. I think politicians, of all parties as it happens, need to understand that there are far less votes in it than they seem to think (for mainstream parties anyway). Enoch Powell hasn't represented a constituency in Great Britain for over thirty years and is now dead.

[afleitch]

Enoch Powell hasn't represented a constituency in Great Britain for over thirty years and is now dead.

In comparison what he said then (this is, hands up, coming from someone who holds a fairly high opinion of Powell and his positioning on social issues, yet can't justify erasing the stain of what he said re immigration) is slightly more temperate than some of the language used by mainstream politicians today. They just use less colourful language (the same can be true of politicians talking about any issue today - they think they stick to the message and use soundbites rather than meandering prose)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually I wasn't thinking of the language Powell used (which was actually much milder than some other Tories in the area used at the time; thinking especially of Peter Griffiths here...) more the way that he was able to use the issue of immigration to build up a huge personal following. You (impersonal you, obviously) couldn't do that now; the issue has lost its shock appeal (bad choice of words I suspect. I know what I mean...). It's just not worth nearly as many votes for democratic political parties now as it was in the '60's and '70's, but politicians (as a collective whole) haven't worked this out yet.

On the issue in general, I think the attitude that politicians take towards it would be better now if Gaitskell hadn't died. Wilson's views on race and immigration weren't any less liberal than Gaitskell's, but he didn't try to address the issue until it was too late, over-calculation being his biggest flaw as a politician (with the opposite of that being the case with Gaitskell).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Might this be another thing we can blame on the Gutter press?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Might this be another thing we can blame on the Gutter press?

In part, yes. But I think certain unhealthy elements in our political culture play a role as well.

[Democratic Hawk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7069779.stm

Nothing wrong in itself ... 

Well, on that we can agree

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ALL governments do it. It's not exclusive to this government

I'm a bit depressed that immigration remains as sensitive an issue as it is though.

Sadly, it's an issue right-wing whackadoos exploit by whipping up fear by flaming base xenophobic prejudices. You'd be surprised at just how many dead-heads think that the British are a minority in their own land. It's enough to make me wanna weep

Dave

[afleitch]

ALL governments do it. It's not exclusive to this government

Oh I agree; but it doesn't help the situation when ministers contradict themselves. We have went from a figure of 0.8 million when it comes to the total number of migrants to 1.1 million and then to 1.5 million; almost double in the space of 24 hours. It may indeed be higher still. 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.

This is not about the rights and wrongs of immigration or whether it should increase or decrease; it's about being honest and secondly keeping a proper tally! Considering estimates put our net migration into the UK at a total of 7 million over the next 25 years we need to plan ahead.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

This is going to go along with a PMQ thread I'm going to start, seems to be another sharp object for Cameron to poke in the eye (working) of Brown.

[Democratic Hawk]

ALL governments do it. It's not exclusive to this government

Oh I agree; but it doesn't help the situation when ministers contradict themselves. We have went from a figure of 0.8 million when it comes to the total number of migrants to 1.1 million and then to 1.5 million; almost double in the space of 24 hours. It may indeed be higher still. 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.

This is not about the rights and wrongs of immigration or whether it should increase or decrease; it's about being honest and secondly keeping a proper tally! Considering estimates put our net migration into the UK at a total of 7 million over the next 25 years we need to plan ahead.

Planning? Isn't that all a bit too socialistic

Dave

[afleitch]

ALL governments do it. It's not exclusive to this government

Oh I agree; but it doesn't help the situation when ministers contradict themselves. We have went from a figure of 0.8 million when it comes to the total number of migrants to 1.1 million and then to 1.5 million; almost double in the space of 24 hours. It may indeed be higher still. 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.

This is not about the rights and wrongs of immigration or whether it should increase or decrease; it's about being honest and secondly keeping a proper tally! Considering estimates put our net migration into the UK at a total of 7 million over the next 25 years we need to plan ahead.

Planning? Isn't that all a bit too socialistic

Dave

That's rather flippant. What on earth has 'planning ahead' got to do with socialism? Corner shops to corporations plan their future expediture and projected incomings and outgoings. You have been twisting yourself in all directions of late to excuse every government mistake to the extent you're loosing all objectivity.

I want the old Dave back

[Democratic Hawk]

That's rather flippant. What on earth has 'planning ahead' got to do with socialism? Corner shops to corporations plan their future expediture and projected incomings and outgoings. You have been twisting yourself in all directions of late to excuse every government mistake to the extent you're loosing all objectivity.

I want the old Dave back

I was being jokingly flippant, hence the . The old Dave is still around very much around somewhere, it's just that my government is not making it any easier for me to defend it right now. Rest assured, however, as long there is breath in my body, David Cameron and the Tories won't be getting a free pass. I'm no soft-touch, like most of the British media, when it comes to David Cameron and nor will I ever be

I must say that I welcome that Darling has taken on board a major concern from business groups re-his proposed changes to CGT. As you know, I voiced strong reservations about his proposals re-IHT, non-doms and that horrid 'flight tax' at the same they were announced, as I did Osborne's, and stand by those reservations. Seemingly, business leaders are still complaining, however. Nevertheless, as I said at the time, would it not have been better since private equity was the intended target, to have proposed new legislation enacting a new tax at 18% to be levied on private equity and it alone; while leaving the taper-relief on CGT as it stands?

The Times also reveals that the £700,000 IHT threshold for couples, which Darling announced in the PBR had been considered by Brown for the last Budget. I just knew, a gut instinct, that the changes announced in the PBR had been considered, albeit not enacted, long before Osborne made his proposals re-IHT, so I'm feeling somewhat vindicated following the vilification I received from one or two down on politicalbetting

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/pbr_2007/article2774356.ece

Personally, however, I don't think there was anything that could not have waited until the Budget proper by which time the hype   that accompanied Osborne's proposals may very well have fizzled out

Dave

[afleitch]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2801894.ece

MORE than 80% of the jobs created in the past 10 years have gone to foreigners - many more than the government admitted last week - according to statistics presented by the Treasury to parliament.

They also show that in the past five years the number of foreigners in work in Britain has risen by nearly 1m, while employment among the UK-born population has dropped by almost 500,000.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some problems:

1. I'm not comfortable with the use of the word "foreigner" do describe everyone born abroad; many are now British citizens. Who'd have thought that The Times, of all newspapers, would head down the road of "nativist" idiocy?

2. The figures themselves are useless (in certain respects worse than useless) without further context; how many people have emigrated from Britain, what has natural population change been (that one being especially important), how many of the workers born abroad are British citizens, and so on and so forth.

[afleitch]

Some problems:

1. I'm not comfortable with the use of the word "foreigner" do describe everyone born abroad; many are now British citizens. Who'd have thought that The Times, of all newspapers, would head down the road of "nativist" idiocy?

2. The figures themselves are useless (in certain respects worse than useless) without further context; how many people have emigrated from Britain, what has natural population change been (that one being especially important), how many of the workers born abroad are British citizens, and so on and so forth.

That's a tad pedantic. The figures are useful at highlighting the details hidden in Labour's job creation record. When taken with the figures for those not working but not classified as out of work (long term sick etc) they make for even more stark reading. Instead the government releases not only 'useless' but falsified figures rather than striving to identify an underlying trend.

None of this would have been a problem if Brown hadn't adopted the 'British Jobs for British Workers' mantra and other alarmist rhetoric (which has somewhat ran away with itself and which is thankfully illegal under EU law) and on which the government's record; 300,000 jobs is pitiful (and on youth employment is shameful)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's a tad pedantic.

I had hoped for more than a tad actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Very useful for scoring political points in that general direction, but not actually useful in themselves for any meaningful purpose.
My points might be pedantic, but that doesn't mean that they aren't also correct. It would also be nice to see some percentages, as opposed to raw figures.

[afleitch]

That's a tad pedantic.

I had hoped for more than a tad actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Very useful for scoring political points in that general direction, but not actually useful in themselves for any meaningful purpose.
My points might be pedantic, but that doesn't mean that they aren't also correct. It would also be nice to see some percentages, as opposed to raw figures.

So you don't consider the government misrepresentation of immigration and subsequently employment figures to be a problem? Having correct, or even broadly more correct figures than those previously cited allows for a more accurate designation and allocation of resources and funds to help communities and migrants.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So you don't consider the government misrepresentation of immigration and subsequently employment figures to be a problem?

No, I do think it's a problem; an endemic one caused by the political sensitivity of the issue. The more importance a given set of government statistics are given by the media, the more likely those figures are to be fiddled by government in response. Same with unemployment.

My issue is with the way the Times chose to report the new statistics; raw figures only, no context and ugly language.

[afleitch]

So you don't consider the government misrepresentation of immigration and subsequently employment figures to be a problem?

No, I do think it's a problem; an endemic one caused by the political sensitivity of the issue. The more importance a given set of government statistics are given by the media, the more likely those figures are to be fiddled by government in response. Same with unemployment.

My issue is with the way the Times chose to report the new statistics; raw figures only, no context and ugly language.

I should have pointed out that in the Focus section of the paper it offered up a 'Make us or break us' report linked with article with a more detailed breakdown and application of the figures. It's pretty measured and not alarmist.

[Democratic Hawk]

None of this would have been a problem if Brown hadn't adopted the 'British Jobs for British Workers' mantra and other alarmist rhetoric (which has somewhat ran away with itself and which is thankfully illegal under EU law) and on which the government's record; 300,000 jobs is pitiful (and on youth employment is shameful)

Surely, it's only illegal in respect of EU economic migrants (i.e. EU citizens)? I've nothing but respect for our hard working, tax paying, EU economic migrants

Dave