EU-BREXIT - Page 64 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By Nonsense
#14961496
layman wrote:At least we have some detail now from someone. The economy will weaken, higher unemployment but it will be better because Europeans will leave, despite details showing Europeans are a huge net benefit to the exchequer ..,



I have read on many occasions, usually from 'Remain'' politicians, but also from ethnic & business lobbyist & EU funded 'researchers or 'academics'

What I have never seen, neither have the above mentioned, is any SOURCE- based EVIDENCE that proves mass migration, including from the E.U, that verifies what these groups or people assert.

I therefore call them all out, including the government, for NOT providing the complete, or even partial evidence to prove, what is in effect, NOT 'EVIDENCE', but RHETORIC.

I need to see ALL the evidence, because I want to verify for myself, what is evidence & what has or has not been included.
By Nonsense
#14961511
Theresa MAY should admit defeat in her efforts to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public through the deceitful mechanism of 'BREXIT' & fall on her sword by calling a general election.

In 2016, the British public vote to 'LEAVE' the E.U, that means leaving at the end of March 2019.

'BREXIT' is a 'Remainer's' construct, in order to forestall the leaving of the E.U next March.

It, in no way affects either the 2016 result or the effects that flow from it.

In FACT, 'BREXIT' has no legal status, because it was not part of the referendum, nor of the 2016 Tory election manifesto, because people voted without that knowledge being in the manifesto.

You see, people attack 'LEAVE' for 'lying' in the lead up to the referendum, which is FALSE, yet, they ignore the election manifesto policy.
As a result, the IGNORANT people are allowed to argue in public to their heart's desire, safe in the knowledge that what they are saying, is not going to be exposed for what it is, complete waffle, myths & outright LIES.

'BREXIT' was not in the 2016 referendum, nor in the election manifesto that year, therefore, 'BREXIT' is a political 'Red Herring'.

Theresa MAY has called upon the Attorney General for legal advice on the Irish 'backdrop',let me say this, That 'advice', will neither be 'legal' or 'impartial', like the decision to enter the EEC, the 'legal' advice was 'political' suited to say whatever the Prime Minister wants it to say, tailored to her failed policy.
By Nonsense
#14961528
ingliz wrote:From the Migration Advisory Committee:

EEA migration in the UK: final report and annexes, Published 18 September 2018


:)


Nonsense-
MAC Report- Forward
"I do think we have made progress in extending the evidence base on the impacts of migration but it would be foolish to claim that any of these questions are ever settled.

Availability and access to data remain serious constraints on our work and we have tried to be clear about where the evidence is inconclusive".

Pointless reading the report, the forward states clearly, that," access to data remain serious constraints on our work".
That means that not only is the report unclear, inconclusive, there are no sources mentioned, it is therefore simply a Publication , WHICH IS not EVIDENCE, AS NO SOURCE FOR ANY DATA, IS PROVIDED.

It is a Committee set up by the government to release to all & sundry, information which should be classed as [b]Disinformation.[/b]

It is, like most government reports, political hogwash.

As in my previous post, NO DATA SOURCES ARE GIVEN & WHERE ANY DATA IS QUOTED, IS USUALLY 'SELECTIVE', TO FIT THE Report Conclusions.
I am NOT interested in propaganda, I ONLY wish to see ALL the 'SOURCES' of the DATA, in order to verify that what is NOT included, should be, or what is included, may not be relevant, either in it's quantity, or in it's quality.

I was forensically trained as a Book-keeper, I NEVER accept anything as gospel, without seeing the EVIDENCE myself, at it's source.
There are probably many data sets that are not included, in order to present a FALSE picture, for POLITICAL reasons, in order to justify continued migration, for fear of the REAL TRUTH causing political embarrassment on both sides of the political fence, that support migration.

We know this is FACT, because the E.U referendum tells us that, from the effects that migration has had in REALITY, on indigenous people's lives in this & other countries.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14961533
Nonsense wrote:there are no sources mentioned

Don't be silly.

Sources are cited in the footnotes.

A sample:

24 Dustmann, C., Fabbri, F., Preston, I. and Wadsworth, J. (2003). The local labour market effects of
immigration in the UK. Home Office Report.
25 Dustmann, C., Fabbri, F. and Preston, I. (2005). The Impact of Immigration on the British Labour
Market. The Economic Journal, 115(507), pp.F324-F341.
26 Portes, J. and French, S. (2005). The impact of free movement of workers from central and eastern
Europe on the UK labour market:early evidence. DWP Working Paper, 18.
27 Gilpin, N., Hent, M., Lemos, S., Portes, J. and Bullen, C. (2006). The impact of free movement of
workers from Central and Eastern Europe on the UK labour market. DWP Working Paper, 29.
28 Lemos, S. and Portes, J. (2008). The impact of migration from the new European Union Member
States on native workers.
29 Reed, H. and Latorre, M. (2009). The Economic Impacts of Migration on the UK Labour Market.
IPPR Economics of Migration Working Paper 3.
30 Migration Advisory Committee (2012). Analysis of the impacts of migration.
31 Lucchino, P., Rosazza-Bondibene, C. and Portes, J. (2012). Examining the relationship between
immigration and unemployment using National Insurance Number registration data. NIESR
Discussion Paper, (386).
32 Lemos, S. (2013). Labour Market Effects of Eastern European Migration in Wales. The Manchester
School, 82(5), pp.524-548.
33 O. Becker, S. and Fetzer, T. (2018). Has Eastern European Migration Impacted British Workers?.
The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS), (1165)

And the source for any graph is given below that graph with a link to the original report in a footnote .

Example:

Source: ONS LTIM Data9...

9 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... izenshipuk



:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 10 Nov 2018 08:57, edited 3 times in total.
By Nonsense
#14961536
ingliz wrote:Don't be silly.

Sources are cited in the footnotes.

A sample:



:lol:



Noemon Edit: Rule 2

They are NOT sources, they are PUBLICATIONS.

Do you even know any of the authors?

Would you even know that some receive funds from the E.U, paid for, from the taxes that we pay the E.U. & YOU would believe what they 'publish'?
:moron:

Do YOU believe everything that you read? :moron: :moron: Mama mia! :*(

Maybe you ought to take some notes..."All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia" Orwell. 8) :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
By ingliz
#14961538
They are NOT sources, they are PUBLICATIONS.

If you could be bothered to read the publications cited they would give their sources.

And if you read the cited sources/publications in those publications they would give their sources.

And if ...


:lol:
By Nonsense
#14961542
ingliz wrote:If you could be bothered to read the publications cited they would give their sources.

And if you read the cited sources/publications they would give their sources.

And if you read the sources/publications cited in those publications they would give their sources.

And if ...


:lol:


If you even read my post, you would see that there are authors who are funded by the E.U.

I can see that, do you think that they would bite the hand that feeds them? :roll:

I reiterate, they are PUBLICATIONS, NOT sources.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14961545
Nonsense wrote:they are PUBLICATIONS, NOT sources

So you refuse to accept any evidence from anybody, however well sourced or researched?


:eh:
Last edited by ingliz on 09 Nov 2018 22:36, edited 1 time in total.
By Nonsense
#14961546
ingliz wrote:So you refuse to accept any evidence from anybody, however well sourced or researched?


:eh:


NO, I never said that, that's your interpretation of what you read.

DATA becomes USED, often that data is used out of context to prove any argument one wants, which is not what or why it was collected in the first place.
It is 'used' or exploited, often by academics or statisticians to make political points for the benefit of their political masters, by the time it is published it bears little resemblance to the raw data in it's original form.

The above is why you cannot trust what you read, because it is not in it's proper context, it is selectively used.

"Lies, damned Lies & statistics".
User avatar
By ingliz
#14961548
by the time it is published it bears little resemblance to the raw data in it's original form.

But you can look at the raw data used in the MAC report in the sources cited.

So what's the problem?
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#14961550
ingliz wrote:Then surely a survey like this is without a doubt better than a referendum.

A referendum would be more like a census which indeed would be better than a survey.
By Nonsense
#14961554
ingliz wrote:But you can look at the raw data used in the MAC report in the sources cited.

So what's the problem?


Well, you would think so, but try searching for either the raw data or other sources, you will find that, since the last Labour government left office, the Tory cuts have meant that data is no longer updated online & that it is quickly archived away from the searching eyes of people like myself.

I used to regularly read the data, for instance, records from National Insurance contributions are collected monthly by the DWP, which is then used by the ONS, it is there that the 'laundering' process of the raw data begins.
The data is analysed into data sets, in order to quantify the differing groups of contributors, such as country of birth, sex. age, how long migrants have been in the country & what benefits they claim, for instance, in 2008, 6.8% of migrants were claiming DLA WITHIN 6 Months of being in the country & that is ONLY just one of the benefits that they may be claiming.
There is also unemployment, social security, educational, advice centre cost, housing, health, as well as others.

Factoring all of the cost, against the contribution by those migrants & on balance I contest the government claim that there is a benefit to mass migration as we have experienced it in the time since 1997.

Economically, look at the increase in the working age population since 1997, compare the total working age population, divide the GDP from 1997 each year by the working age population & compare that to the growth since then.

In real terms, growth has rarely, if ever, exceeded the inflation rate, YET, if that migration was 'good' for the country, the GDPPP would have risen proportionately to the increase in that population of workers.

The FACT is, real wages have declined, because productivity has fallen.

That is a DIRECT influence of rising working age migration, productivity depends on increasing productive output, using FEWER people, NOT increasing them, as the situation with rising migration causes & brings about lower levels of wealth.
NOT only has productivity fallen, the government's cost of that increased population has risen, even though, as individuals, we have lost out.
If we had an increase of 10% in the working age population from migration, our output, along with the increase in GDP & consequent increase in personal prosperity,ought to equate with that percentage increase of available labour - it doesn't, which is why most of us are poorer.
NOT only that, government fiscal & debt management have made our situation even more dire.

No statistics can hide the inflationary effects of migration, which cause more demand, without the necessary productivity increases with which we can pay for those price increases & of course the government has \ will have increased the national debt by FOUR TIMES what it was under Labour, by the time of the next election.

So, no, I am deeply sceptical of anything that any government says.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14961659
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:A referendum would be more like a census

No.

In a census all members of a population are counted.

Nonsense wrote:look at the increase in the working age population since 1997

There is no evidence of higher or lower prosperity being associated with a higher or lower population.
Last edited by ingliz on 10 Nov 2018 07:25, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#14961661
ingliz wrote:No.

In a census all members of a population are counted.

That's why I said "more like" and not "exactly like".

What's your point anyway? Do you actually believe that crime reports are a better measure than the crime survey or are you arguing for the sake of it?
User avatar
By ingliz
#14961676
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Do you actually believe that crime reports are a better measure than the crime survey

They are much the same in many respects.

User Guide to Crime Statistics for England and Wales, Jan 2017 wrote:Ratio comparing CSEW reported crime and police recorded crime... 97% in the year ending March 2016

But the Home Office agrees with me that "as the CSEW is a general household population survey, the number of hate crime incidents and victims estimated in a single survey year is too unreliable to report on."
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#14961684
ingliz wrote:They are much the same in many respects.

If they are so similar how is it possible that they show an opposite trend?

ingliz wrote:But the Home Office agrees with me that as the CSEW is a general household population survey, the number of hate crime incidents and victims estimated in a single survey year is too unreliable to report on.

This caveat is followed by:
Therefore, three annual datasets have been combined in order to provide a larger sample which can be used to produce robust estimates for hate crime.

Which is why each data point in this graph covers three annual datasets.
Image
Did you miss this or did you just choose to ignore it?
User avatar
By ingliz
#14961687
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:three annual datasets have been combined

Unfortunately for you that only gives a trend (note the line of the graph) and as the CSEW is a general household population survey, the number of hate crime incidents and victims estimated in a single survey year is still too unreliable to report on.


:)
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#14961690
ingliz wrote:Unfortunately for you that only gives a trend (note the line of the graph) and as the CSEW is a general household population survey, the number of hate crime incidents and victims estimated in a single survey year is still too unreliable to report on.

The trend is what's important and it's a consistent downward trend. That's good news by the way.

Also from the report you linked:
Improvements in police recording have been mentioned as a driver in the increase seen in hate crime offences recorded by the police. Section 2.2 shows that 90 per cent of hate crimes in 2017/18 were for either public order or violence against the person offences, continuing the pattern seen in previous years. Figure 2.1 shows the indexed trend in overall violent and public order offences since 2012/13 compared with all hate crime offences over the same period. As can be seen, there is a strong correlation between the increase in overall public order and violence against the person offences and hate crime.

The Office for National Statistics have stated that increases in recent years in police recorded violence against the person and public order offences are thought to have largely been driven by improvements in police recording following the renewed focus on the quality of recorded crime. These improvements are likely to have also driven the increase in police recorded hate crime.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14961691
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:That's good news by the way.

That doesn't stop the Policy Exchange article you pointed up, the one that used CSEW single survey year numbers to counter polling results that showed race was a significant driver for Leave voters, from being a load of disingenuous bollocks.

Home Office, Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2017/18 wrote:the number of hate crime incidents and victims estimated in a single survey year is too unreliable to report on.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 10 Nov 2018 10:20, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 72

You really have no clue what goes on there. Just […]

I think you can keep the money without being charg[…]

I agree with POD. Mental health treatment is not […]

@Drlee While I don't disagree in principle, the R[…]