egafd.com

David Johnson wrote:

>
> The report I reference was not issued by the
> government/government agencies. It was produced by University
> College London.
>
> If you have any proof that it is incorrect, provide that
> evidence.


I have not said that the report itself was inaccurate but rather I was questioning the scope set by who ever commissioned it.
My point was had a different person / committee commissioned it and set a different the scope the headline result may well also have been different.

Maybe I'm missing something but the fact that is was produced by University College London not the government or a government agency is irrelevant.

"I was questioning the scope set by who ever commissioned it."

The scope is the fiscal position. It does not address the labour market issue. That can be found elsewhere by googling.

I suggest you google them and have a read and decide for yourself.

"Maybe I'm missing something but the fact that is was produced by University College London not the government or a government agency is irrelevant."

I was responding to Essex Lad's point. He raised the topic of government or a government agency.

max_tranmere wrote:

> There are certainly advantages to us by having workers from
> Eastern Europe here, they are doing jobs others won't do - be
> it fruit picking, bar work, waiter/waitress, cleaner, building
> site labourer, road sweeper, etc. People's anger comes when
> some DO go on Benefit, and/or have access to unlimited
> expensive healthcare on the NHS when their contribution has
> been minimal. Is it right that someone works as a waitress,
> pays little or no tax, but can get thousands of pounds of
> healthcare free? Or a bus driver who gets his kids educated for
> nothing? These are the things that rattle people, aswell as the
> fact, as I said previously, that we are an overcrowded little
> island.

To a point I agree with you since roving short term jobs like fruit and veg picking are indeed suited to short term migrant workers as it is not practical to move our unemployed permanent residents around the locations. Because the jobs are roving while a couple could come and both work they are not suited those with children.
The system should be that there is no unemployment benefit available to the migrant workers so once the work dries up they either return home or move off to another country that can offer short-term work.

However the same does not apply to fixed location continuously required local jobs like cleaning, bar and waiter/waitress work etc. These should be filled by those registered as unemployed. Only if then we are short of workers should a limited number of long term migrant workers be allowed. Even then the system should be such that they are only entitled to limited benefits eg if they become unemployed they are allowed only four weeks benefit so if they do not find another job in that time unless they can fund themselves they have to leave the UK.
This would need to have clauses so that eg a group of four can not work the system by sharing one job with each being employed for a week then unemployed for three.

In all cases it is reasonable that the migrants have access to our healthcare while here but they must be subject to a medical and have records checked to ensure they are not really wanting to come for treatment of pre-existing conditions.

"However the same does not apply to fixed location continuously required local jobs like cleaning, bar and waiter/waitress work etc. These should be filled by those registered as unemployed. Only if then we are short of workers should a limited number of long term migrant workers be allowed."

This sounds plausible but I suspect would not work. The reason is that the entire service sector e.g. cleaning, bar and waiter/waitress work, shop work etc. etc. has been casualised in which potential employers insist either staff should be self employed or on zero hours contracts.

In that situation, people are extremely reluctant when they have regular bills to pay, to come off the unemployed register without any guarantees whatsoever of a regular number of hours. Without completely changing this "casualization" of work, there is absolutely no chance of this plan working.

"Even then the system should be such that they are only entitled to limited benefits eg if they become unemployed they are allowed only four weeks benefit so if they do not find another job in that time unless they can fund themselves they have to leave the UK."

This seems unfair. If a person contributes in income tax and National Insurance to this country then they should be due to the same benefits as a UK national. I am sure that all the brickies, electricians etc. that went over to Germany would have found it unfair if they had worked for a year or two in that country, paying taxes etc. and then found they had to leave the country after 4 weeks once the project finished. I am sure the same feelings would apply to the hundreds of thousands of British people working in Europe.

Fruit picking is certainly seasonal, but then again it always has been and I wonder what happened years ago when it was the locals who did it - I assume they tried to find other jobs the rest of the year.

Someone working here all the time and contributing to the ecomony and to the Exchequer in tax clearly deserves healthcare - it's just when it's health toursim, people coming here just for that, or people who have returned home and are able to say they were in the UK for a brief spell, worked a bit, and got an operation or two on the NHS for nothing - it is that sort of thing which annoys people.

By co-incidence the entire front page of The Sun newspaper today (Friday) has a story about Romanians in the UK who are Benefit tourists.

The Sun!

That?s most impressive, it?s well known for being a paragon of truth and decency.

I would say second only to the Daily Mail.

I don?t see how anyone can argue with anything it prints.

Things like bar work/watressing etc doesn't have to be brief and casual, any more than office work has to be. Cafes, bars and restaurants are obviously open 12 months or the year, it is not seasonal like fruit picking. People could theoretically get jobs in the hospitality industry and remain in the same job for years. I think one of the reasons a lot of it is casual now is because people do it as a fill-in while on holiday from university, whilst trying to get a better paid job, or similar.

Someone from abroad doing that, and who is here for a good while, deserves NHS cover and deserves Benefits - but in my view the Benefit entitlement should be for a very limitetd time and they would either have to get another job here or leave the country.

Incidentally, as I mentioned to Sparky above, The Sun newspaper has gone to town this morning with their entire front page about Romanians coming here for Benefits. I saw it in the shop earlier. Have a read! Lol.

I dont think anyone is of the view that The Sun is an intellectual read or that it ever does anything other than sensationalise things. However Prime Ministers are scared of it and will often take very seriously something it highlights because Essex Man and Kent Woman often hold the sway at elections.

I remeber sometimes when Tony Blair would get an arse-kicking from The Sun he would write them a handwritten letter pointing out what he was going to do about the apparent failing in whichever particular policy they were sternly pointing out he'd failed on.

Essex Man and Kent Woman = thick bastards.

"Things like bar work/watressing etc doesn't have to be brief and casual, any more than office work has to be. Cafes, bars and restaurants are obviously open 12 months or the year, it is not seasonal like fruit picking. People could theoretically get jobs in the hospitality industry and remain in the same job for years"

You appear to be missing the point. Of course it doesn't have to be casual. The reason it is casual is because the employers save money on tax and benefits such as holiday pay etc That is why zero hours contracts and self employed staff are used.