OBR says uk migration unsustainable

[milesgiles]

Will certain ph’ers finally accept what has been obviously for 20 years?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/immigration-...

[turbobloke]

milesgiles said:

Will certain ph ers finally accept what has been obviously for 20 years?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/immigration-...

Some, probably not.

[119]

Interesting to see if that story turns up on the more MSM.

[sugerbear]

"The OBR also conceded that low-paid migrants are a net drain, costing UK taxpayers £150,000 per person by the time they reach the state pension age."

Isn't that the case for every low paid worker? If it really does cost the UK that then simple answer is to the change the elibility rules for the state pension.

[grumbledoak]

Massive numbers of low wage workers eligible to claim benefits are not a net positive to the economy? Who could have guessed?

The only question is how long it will take Starmer to get this marked as "harmful" so you need a VPN to read it.

[Mrr T]

milesgiles said:

Will certain ph ers finally accept what has been obviously for 20 years?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/immigration-...

Will you finally read what your posting and try to understand it?

[Rufus Stone]

Doesn't look like the OBR is saying that to me.

An economist that supposedly works for the OBR has via an obscure organisation nobody has heard of and isn't published on their website.

[s1962a]

and yet people want to protest outside asylum hotels rather than focus on the number of legal skilled workers and their families coming over.

[Mrr T]

Rufus Stone said:

Doesn't look like the OBR is saying that to me.

An economist that supposedly works for the OBR has via an obscure organisation nobody has heard of and isn't published on their website.

The OBR has covered this before and it's likely correct. But, and it's a bit but, you need to read and understand the comments. It's clear that the poster who started the tread and a number of others did not. They just hope for a gotch moment.

[Camoradi]

Rufus Stone said:

Doesn't look like the OBR is saying that to me.

An economist that supposedly works for the OBR has via an obscure organisation nobody has heard of and isn't published on their website.

Supposedly?

https://obr.uk/about-the-obr/who-we-are/prof-david...

[768]

milesgiles said:

Will certain ph ers finally accept what has been obviously for 20 years?

To the surprise of no one, our survey says no.

[blueg33]

s1962a said:

and yet people want to protest outside asylum hotels rather than focus on the number of legal skilled workers and their families coming over.

The 4% that are asylum seekers are not the issue. Never have been but the politicians and press love to point in that direction. Because if they show a nurse coming over, going to a hospital and helping sick people they can't fire up people. Its a massive "look a squirrel" tactic.

We do have a fundamental issue though, caused by an aging population. We simply do not have enough people to do the work that is required.

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

milesgiles said:

Will certain ph ers finally accept what has been obviously for 20 years?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/immigration-...

Will you finally read what your posting and try to understand it?

Great answer. Understanding that current levels of immigration are officially seen to be unsustainable isn't difficult. For your part did you have comprehension problems or political problems or both maybe? Otherwise why the swerve?

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

Rufus Stone said:

Doesn't look like the OBR is saying that to me.

An economist that supposedly works for the OBR has via an obscure organisation nobody has heard of and isn't published on their website.

The OBR has covered this before and it's likely correct. But, and it's a bit but, you need to read and understand the comments. It's clear that the poster who started the tread and a number of others did not. They just hope for a gotch moment.

How many obfuscation moments do you expect? Apart from shooting the secondary source messenger, that's done.

[Olivera]

Quelle surprise

[ATG]

turbobloke said:

Mrr T said:

milesgiles said:

Will certain ph ers finally accept what has been obviously for 20 years?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/immigration-...

Will you finally read what your posting and try to understand it?

Great answer. Understanding that current levels of immigration are officially seen to be unsustainable isn't difficult. For your part did you have comprehension problems or political problems or both maybe? Otherwise why the swerve?

Mrr T is pointing out that the article doesn't say what the OP seems to think it says. And that seems to be be correct if you actually bother to read the article ... which only takes a few seconds as it is just GB News picking a few sentences out of context in a deliberate attempt to mislead its gullible audience.

[E63eeeeee...]

turbobloke said:

Mrr T said:

milesgiles said:

Will certain ph ers finally accept what has been obviously for 20 years?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/immigration-...

Will you finally read what your posting and try to understand it?

Great answer. Understanding that current levels of immigration are officially seen to be unsustainable isn't difficult. For your part did you have comprehension problems or political problems or both maybe? Otherwise why the swerve?

You seem to be, and I'm sure it's accidentally, misrepresenting how official this view is.

Never mind that nobody is suggesting we carry on with 700k+ per year net migration, or mentioning that it was down to 430k in 2024 and likely still falling. GB News, again I'm sure accidentally, refer to population growth data for the year to June 2024, and not the more recent and more relevant (and coincidentally much lower) net migration figure.

[Sport_Turismo_GTS]

E63eeeeee... said:

You seem to be, and I'm sure it's accidentally, misrepresenting how official this view is.

Never mind that nobody is suggesting we carry on with 700k+ per year net migration, or mentioning that it was down to 430k in 2024 and likely still falling. GB News, again I'm sure accidentally, refer to population growth data for the year to June 2024, and not the more recent and more relevant (and coincidentally much lower) net migration figure.

The use of ‘Net’ migration hides a lot of issues - gross migration was approaching one million last year - who are in the c. one million coming in and who are in the c. 0.5 million going out, that’s crucial.

[E63eeeeee...]

grumbledoak said:

Massive numbers of low wage workers eligible to claim benefits are not a net positive to the economy? Who could have guessed?

The only question is how long it will take Starmer to get this marked as "harmful" so you need a VPN to read it.

Who's eligible to claim benefits? What routes are these "massive numbers of low wage workers" coming in on? What's your idea of a massive number? Apparently there are 34 million people in the UK workforce.

[Spare tyre]

We have strange men hanging around our school, especially the junior school - this is a new thing

We also have lots of kids arriving mid term who don’t speak English, not the kids problem, but my daughter has less teaching resources put her way because there are 3 or 4 different interpreters kicking about