Polly Toynbee let the cat out of the bag…after years of insisting that immigration makes us wealthier Toynbee reveals that the real position is that a bigger population merely makes the economy bigger whilst not actually benefiting anybody:
“The whole economy has only got bigger because we’ve got more people.”
There might be a bigger economy but it’s not more productive and is shared out between more people, as she says…’growth per capita is virtually stagnant‘….so no overall benefit….which is what previous, non-partisan, reports have told us.
Asinine woman. Her brain is as flaccid as her butt.
Mass immigration = Human quantitative easing . More people but each worth a little less. Polly is OK with that. It doesn’t affect her.
“Mass immigration = Human quantitative easing”
That’s very good. I’ve not thought of it like that before. I’m afraid I’m going to steal it – Sorry about that old chap…
It must have been the delightful ’78 Bordeaux she was sipping at the time at her villa in Tuscany.
Careful, Polly – don’t drink and write!
As always, wrong on many levels
http://www.cps.org.uk/blog/q/date/2014/04/30/8-factual-errors-by-polly-toynbee-in-our-debate/
1.)
“Britain: Mass Immigration Leaves Towns and Cities ‘Unrecognizable'”
by Soeren Kern
(2014).
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4205/britain-immigration
2.)
“Mass immigration is destroying our once great nation”
By Leo McKinstry
(2013).
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/451080/Mass-immigration-is-destroying-our-once-great-nation
3.)
“The Economic Impact of Immigration”
By Professor Robert Rowthorn,
Economics Faculty, Cambridge University.
(2004)
‘Civitas’ publication, available here in pdf-
Click to access Rowthorn_Immigration.pdf
4.)
‘Telegraph'(£)-
“Never have we seen immigration on this scale: we just can’t cope”
By Robert Rowthorn, 2006.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3626107/Never-have-we-seen-immigration-on-this-scale-we-just-cant-cope.html
Mass immigration has done everything it was intended to do.
mass immigration has no doubt made this hypocrite and liar polly toynbee quiet wealthy judging by all the propertys she owns all around the country in the leafy all white middle class surburbs,and not to mention her nice holiday home in portugal,not bad for a socalist heh polly,dont you just get sick and tired of champayne bbc luvvie socalists like her telling us this constant lie about how happy and greatfull we should all be to the likes of her and the labour party for having mass immigration thrust on us without asking us first if we wanted it,your a liar polly toynbee,also.is it not ironic that the very people like her and others that love mass immigration always seem to live in the posh middle leafy surburbs where there has been no immigration at all,the hypocrisy and double standards from the likes of her and the labour party makes me sick to the teeth.
“people like her and others that love mass immigration always seem to live in the posh middle leafy surburbs where there has been no immigration”
that has always been the same with the left – always upper middle class and never have to live in the mess that they create
I tried to explain this to someone earlier this week – in rather over simplified terms, but it made sense to them.
Four people are going out together for the day. Each contributes £100 so the group has £400. They then discover that number 4 has invited someone else to join them – number 5. Number 5 is willing to pay his way and has £50. Number 4 tells the others that the group can now afford a better day out as it has £450 instead of £400. However, number 1 does the sums and works out that they now have only £90 each to spend. The other think he is wrong, because if he’s right it made no sense for number 4 to invite number 5 as he will also be £10 worse off. Then they discover that number 5 is renting a bike from number 4 for £30. Number 5 is happy (and grateful to number 4) as overall he is still £10 better off (£60 instead of £50); number 4 is happy as number 5 now owes him a favour and overall he is £20 better off (£120 instead of £100); and numbers 1, 2 and 3 are unhappy because they are each £10 worse off (£90 instead of £100) – which is why they are going to vote for UKIP.
A silly story, but I think it won UKIP a couple more votes. They were receptive to the message because of the media smears over the past week. One of them had always believed that the BBC could do no wrong, but that has also changed.
Nigeria has a far bigger economy than Lichtenstein, where would you rather live?
This is something I mentioned a couple of days ago on the ‘5 Live Drivel’ thread. It’s not about GDP, it’s about GDP per head, and that Peston in looking now towards this is correct but hypocritical.
But I’m surprised that Polly Toynbee has finally seen the light over immigration.
The question is, will the political mainstream now focus on improving productivity through a tighter immigration policy? In reality, the cost of living is an effect of welfare spending. Market prices have surged ahead on goods and services through the boom years to soak up the money paid out to a generation of families who suddenly found themselves in receipt of tax credits. While it temporarily increases the standard of living, immigration then increases in a growing market and undercuts Labour values – the welfare/work gap grows larger.
The final effect here is that standard of living supported by unqualified work is reduced in comparison to the average, as prices have been forced up by demand for essentials (more people) and loose money supply (benefits and government expansionism).
There is no pain free way to reverse this, it will involve a drop in the standard of living beyond what we have already seen, and for the market to return to more reasonable values for Labour and commodities.
All increases in the standard of living must be bought through rises in productivity.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that Toynbee gets this part of it – as she is in favour of price controls.
Lets not forget that the real issue behind mass immigration is not about financials , although they are very important, but about quality of life. I can well believe that many immigrants are much happier in the UK than they were at home. (But I do worry about their off spring who grow up here and don’t see how better their lives are than if they had grown up in their parents home country.)
But the bit the Potty Polly Brigade and the likes of the BBC, forget to ask themselves is, ‘ are we Brits happier with all these immigrants in our country than we would have been without them’? Of course we are not. Had any of our rulers asked us what we thought about the idea of inviting millions of aliens into our country we would have said NO, but they knew we would, so they didn’t ask us but just went ahead and did it.
One of the reasons why UKIP is so popular is that they seem prepared to try and at least limit immigration to those who will be useful additions to our population. The BBC et al think that by screaming racist everytime a UKIP person says anything, they will reduce UKIP’s appeal. If they knew anything about what most Brits think, they would realise that just the opposite was true. It shows just OUT OF TOUCH the BBC is.
“Lets not forget that the real issue behind mass immigration is not about financials”
This can’t be repeated often enough. It doesn’t matter, within reason, whether immigrants make us richer, whose jobs they are taking or whether native Brits are lazy.
The essential point is that we didn’t want our country changed into somewhere else. Politicians and journalists are either incapable or unwilling to understand this. 60,000 French people have moved to London and nobody seems to mind very much. Why? Because unlike others, they haven’t tried to rearrange the furniture.
It will end in tears.
And when all these people approach retirement age? Who will foot the bill ? Immigration in the first ten years of this millennium will be the single most destructive policy to have ever happened to this country.
A House of lords report that is now many years old. Stated this fact, by doing something sensible and showing GDP per head of population. Those who agenda it was to increase their client voting numbers never refereed to it because it was ‘ an inconvenient truth. The bBC was one of those who chose not to refer to this report which is among the HoL documents.
Thought this was interesting -from commentator comments
digitaltoast•5 hours ago
Hmmm, it appears that posting links to prove my evidence gets my post rapidly deleted. Reposting with links removed:
I think the Migration Matters Trust could do with a little scrutiny themselves. You see, it’s not a trust at all.
They were told by Companies House they were in breach and to stop using that term over a year ago. They were also warned about breach of law by not incorporation company details on their website. Shortly after, this appeared buried away on one of their pages:
The Migration Matters Trust is a company limited by guarantee: Migrationmatterscampaign; company number 8355932; registered in England & Wales.
For a short while, it also appeared on the site footer, which has now reverted to just “Copyright © 2014, “.
I’m pretty sure that this isn’t a matter of “oversight”, seeing as their board includes:
Greg Thomson, Unison – National development manager.
Julia Onslow-Cole – PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
Tony Halmos – City of London Corporation.
Paul Crowe – LOC Consulting, Director.
All that business knowledge and no-one thought to check basic business law?!
Oh, good luck finding MMT Companies House – I wonder why you’d deliberately squash your company name into one word, rather than Migration matters campaign Ltd like everyone else would do?)
I wonder how they’re spending the £27,000 gift from Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust?
(link removed so I can post this – Google it)
Grant number 3072
Grantee: Migration Matters
Amount: £27,000
Year: 2012
Purpose: for a campaign to make a positive case for immigration in Britain.
Although they don’t discuss donations, a quick phone call revealed that the JRT weren’t aware that MMT is a Ltd company at the time of the donation.
You’ll find Tony Holmos on their board. Who he?
“Migration Matters Trust advisory board member”.
Also:
“Tony Halmos, Director of Public Relations, City of London Corporation”
The same City of London Corporation corporation which give the MMT £5,000 per year:
(link removed so I can post this – Google it)
Conflict of interest maybe?
My cousin proposed I’d like that blog. They once was completely right. This particular placed truly manufactured the evening. A person cann’t consider the way in which a great deal of moment I’d invested due to this data! Thanks!